• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

Should gays be allowed to serve openly gay in the military?

  • yes

    Votes: 40 78.4%
  • no

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • Total voters
    51
The overall effectiveness of the military comes before personal desires.

Explain to me what makes the military NOT effective just because gays are open??????

Comfort in the shower and I hate fags excluded please.....
 
but the 'founders' of our constitution did NOT suffer homosexuals, witches nor any others that fall under a similar umbrella
perhaps you should consider the context of the original framers
they were hardly 'open-minded liberals'.


Yes, Because it is pure torture to have to live in a world where I know guys love other guys..... :roll:
 
The military is outside of the constitution. It, the military is under the rules the congress decides... they could decide only left handed midgets could serve and no one could complain.

Actually, Plenty of people could complain.
And they WOULD complain too.
 
I am getting very disgusted with random people in favor of openly gay people in the military, however ignore everything about the thread and just continue to say something like "gays should be able to serve in the military and everyone is equal". Then people make arguments to go against it. They wait awhile, then repeat. That seems to be the left wing tactic on this thread.

How about someone give me an answer on this instead of waiting then later on saying oh i think gays should be able to serve openly.



Thoughts?

Yes, I have thoughts.....

How do you know it will decrease military effectiveness?

Are YOU saying, SpooK, that you would be less capable of completing your assigned tasks as a member of whatever damned ship you happen to be working on just because a gay person is working near you?

Or does this have more to do with...
A. Comfortable Showers..
B. "I hate fags" mentality

And, if you are less capable of completing your assigned tasks only because you have to work near a gay person, Why? Does it have something to do with...

1. Comfort in the shower
2. "I hate fags" mentality
???

Do you really think that a unit working together would not be capable of getting the job done and protecting each other during a time of war because there are gays around?

If so, why do you think that is?
Is it because of..
1. Comfort in the shower
2. "I hate fags" mentality

And, if so, do you think it would cause a soldier to act irresponsibly and negligently enough to """"""accidentally"""""" kill one of his battle partners who """"happens"'"" to be gay?

If so, Why? Would it have something to do with.
1. They wanted a comfortable shower
2. They hated fags.

And, if they hated fags enough to kill one who is an ally, do you think this type of immature mentality should be encouraged?
 
Explain to me what makes the military NOT effective just because gays are open??????
Absolutely nothing, of course, as has been shown in a growing list of other
countries (cue for a "but the USA is special" rant).
 
Wow, just wow. This post is prefectly displays the kind of irrational nonsense that holds a nation back.
Back from what progressive agenda? Very well thought out response to my rant by the way, perhaps you should consider becoming a hostage negotiator...

The comment on social experimentation doesn't make sense because gays are already serving in the military. I'm expected to believe that these gay people will now, if they honestly answer a question regarding their orientation if they wish to, will all of a sudden start hitting on same-sex members all of a sudden or what?
In my expected norm I like to think those around me share the same thinking to feel comfortable... like when I go to work it would shock my norm if everyone were nude and look at me and giggle and say, what you didn't get the memo? It is as stark as that, I can work among nudists for a lifetime as long as they keep their clothes on.

Now what is the gay lifestyle and what is the straight lifestyle? To use such a term shows you live in your own bubble. Both of the above do not exist in reality, only in your imagination. And why should anyone care what the majority thinks?
Of course they both exist in the real world, travel to NYC and the only bubble of gay normality is in Greenwich Village... outside of that bubble norm is the majorities norm where gays are abnormal and a shock to the norm.

The majority has condoned everything from slavery to child labor, why should we care about their assumptions? You may think you're better than me, but no governmental stamp of approval changes the fact that we are both human beings. The difference being how we live and I choose to accept reality and the facts and not to rant on about a "higher god" which means as much as "hptpdjf", ie nothing. Unless you can give a detailed description of this "higher god", one which if it created the world also created the gay mammals that populate it. For them to do what is natural for them to do, be gay mammals, and to call them "abominations of nature" is the height of absurdity. And since when did something have to be natural to be good? What the hell are you doing on the internet then?
America is great because it was founded by social conservatives that supported free market capitalism and practiced Social Darwinism leaving compassion of the weak for the family, church and community. If you read history clearly then you would see the founding Americans to be more like the enemy we now face in their thinking... they view us as heathens of a lower god as we viewed the Indians and Mexicans as people's of a lower god... the war of 1812 was a defining point that endorsed the "Manifest Destiny" of our higher god justifying the conquering of "uncivilized lands". All that were not of our kind were infidels required to submit to our higher god or die. To not acknowledge what made America is to live in a parallel universe created by America haters that think Americans are bad and the liberal founders tricked the bad people to install a fair government to protect and raise the weakest to the level of the strongest.

If anything you have demonstrated that it is you that is not my equal as you have taken it upon yourself to wallow in ignorace instead of seeking to heighten your intellectual capacity.
I think it is you that is being intellectually dishonest... you live in a bubble among those who support your view and ignore the reality of the differences that have caused the agenda to be where it is at present. Write a letter to the Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division and ask to address units of his personnel on your intellectual assessment of gay strait progress in acceptance in America and conduct a poll of the soldiers and share it with the General. Perhaps then you may find it is you that's in the bubble.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that your half-brother didn't want to tell you about his gay son because he didn't want to see you embarass yourself with an irrational, heavily emotional display.
It was a different time than now... gays were whispered about by adults outside of the reach of children... my half brother was an avid baseball fan and named his son Robert because his baseball hero had a nickname "Bullet Bob" for his fast pitch abilities... The only bullets his Bob shot were in the back of his lover’s throat or rectum... no bragging rights or dreams were fulfilled to "speak of."
 
Actually, Plenty of people could complain.
And they WOULD complain too.
Very good point, we live in a democratic republic and any law or policy we don't agree with should be brought to the attention of the lawmakers for re-evaluation.

I think the law or policy of DADT reflects the will of the American people. The congress is democratically elected and includes gays as it did when DADT was ordered. But it is a democratic republic... Often actions of lawmakers take on behalf of the "republic" do not mirror the popular support of the masses but are judgments made by lawmakers "in the interest of the nation".

The military is outside of the constitutional protections of citizenry as you well know being a former soldier. Generally, the congressional regulations that govern citizen soldiers mirror constitutional rights as much as possible while maintaining command, control, morale and discipline... But as you know many rights are taken away when you take the oath and perform federal military duty and these rights or protections are replaced with congressional rules.

Go to this site and click 6. U.S. Constitution, select Article I, section 8
• 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
• 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
• 16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
• 17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,
• 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Founding Documents

Perhaps some day in the future will see a majority willing to reverse DADT "republic doctrine" but I think not in our lifetime. Gay lifestyle is to the military as acceptable as nudist colonies in public schools playgrounds.
 
Of course he has a clue and I will tell you why. Very simply, it's not about the gays, it's about the military. Military effectiveness comes before personal desires and that is the bottom line. He does not need to know what it is like to be gay to know that it can and will decrease military effectiveness.
Such a strong and compelling argument with no evidence to support it.


The reason I keep bringing up the same executive order 9981 as the climate of the US at the time was one of racial inequality and hostility.
Cite:
In the 1940s, racial segregation by law was widespread and racial discrimination was common in the United States. Although the U.S. Constitution guarantees "equal protection of the laws for all persons," the Supreme Court's interpretation at that time required only that the states or the federal government provide equal yet segregated facilities for whites and non-whites.

During World War II, most African Americans and Japanese Americans who served in the U.S. Army did so in racially segregated units. Many states had laws requiring African Americans, Latino/a Americans, Native Americans and Asian Americans to go to segregated schools, work at segregated jobs and live in segregated parts of town.[1] Segregated facilities were not considered inherently unequal until 1954.

Harry S Truman signed the executive order in 1948 in an effort to make sure that during those tumultous times, those who volunteered to serve (the draft from WWII being over) were going to be protected in the military. Any bigotry or problems that being black/having a different religion/or from a different country of origin would cause, would not be acceptable.

Executive order 9981 was no more a "social experiment" as Navy Pride is labeling as gays serving openly in the military would be.


Let's apply the rationale being used by those who support DADT and apply it to religion and the US Gov't protection on that. Why not DADT on religion? What if you're bunking with a muslim since there's so much hate and bigotry towards that religion? Shouldn't they keep that in their "bedrooms" so as not to "decrease morale"? If soldiers are allowed to talk about and practive their religion without impunity, why should sexuality be any different?
 
I am getting very disgusted with random people in favor of openly gay people in the military, however ignore everything about the thread and just continue to say something like "gays should be able to serve in the military and everyone is equal". Then people make arguments to go against it. They wait awhile, then repeat. That seems to be the left wing tactic on this thread.

How about someone give me an answer on this instead of waiting then later on saying oh i think gays should be able to serve openly.
For starters, people in the military are not guarenteed freedom of speech and other rights that are guareneteed from the constitution. All military members are subject to the rules and regulations of the UCMJ. Many of these rules and regulations contradict the constitution.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is it will decrease overall military effectivness. Ive said it 100 times now: whether it is morally right or wrong doesnt matter. Military effectiveness is the bottom line. If people would feel uncomfortable around openly gay people, wouldnt trust them, or whatever the case may be -- it will decrease overall effectiveness.

I am yet to see someone claim that military effectiveness isnt the number one priority.

Thoughts?

Let's talk about military effectiveness under DADT. But first off, a link to the UCMJ. As for UCMJ being contradictory of the constitution:
The Marcum court rejected the argument that, under Lawrence, Article 125, UCMJ, was unconstitutional on its face. It stated that “an understanding of military culture and mission cautions against sweeping constitutional pronouncements that may not account for the nuance of military life.”
Anyways...

Let's talk about the Arabic and Farsi translators, who, due to DADT were booted from the military. Does that give us a more effective military when we have these rare folks who can translate the language of the people we're invading?

CITE:
 
Explain to me what makes the military NOT effective just because gays are open??????

Comfort in the shower and I hate fags excluded please.....

I never said out military would not be effective because gays are open. I said it would be less effective. Pay attention to detail.
 
I voted an absolute yes. Those who don't want to serve with gay people need not serve at all.
 
Yes, I have thoughts.....

How do you know it will decrease military effectiveness?
Let's think about this Caine. If people would feel uncomfortable around gays, not trust them or just be disgusted to be around them, it would decrease overall effectiveness.

I can understand if you say, well, I dont agree with people feeling that way, ok fine. I can understand if you say, there is nothing wrong we gay people. Ok fine. I can understand if you say, I trust gay people, ok fine.

I, however, can not understand how you could say if people in the military feel that way, it would not increase military effectiveness.

Are YOU saying, SpooK, that you would be less capable of completing your assigned tasks as a member of whatever damned ship you happen to be working on just because a gay person is working near you?

Or does this have more to do with...
A. Comfortable Showers..
B. "I hate fags" mentality

And, if you are less capable of completing your assigned tasks only because you have to work near a gay person, Why? Does it have something to do with...

1. Comfort in the shower
2. "I hate fags" mentality
???

Do you really think that a unit working together would not be capable of getting the job done and protecting each other during a time of war because there are gays around?

If so, why do you think that is?
Is it because of..
1. Comfort in the shower
2. "I hate fags" mentality
I am not saying anything about me. I am speaking in general. I never said I am bothered about gays, but I do know how many people feel about it.

And, if so, do you think it would cause a soldier to act irresponsibly and negligently enough to """"""accidentally"""""" kill one of his battle partners who """"happens"'"" to be gay?

If so, Why? Would it have something to do with.
1. They wanted a comfortable shower
2. They hated fags.

And, if they hated fags enough to kill one who is an ally, do you think this type of immature mentality should be encouraged?

Yes, unfortunately, I could see that happening in some cases. Do I think it's right? No, but it doesnt mean it couldnt happen.

BTW Caine, you skipped over a post entirely directed at you. I wouldnt mind if you want back and responded to it.
 
Such a strong and compelling argument with no evidence to support it.
How is there no evidence? What exactly are you disagreeing with? Posting "evidence" like the Executive Order 9981 isnt exactly evidence. I dont see how it is helping you make any sort of point.

The reason I keep bringing up the same executive order 9981 as the climate of the US at the time was one of racial inequality and hostility.
Cite:


Harry S Truman signed the executive order in 1948 in an effort to make sure that during those tumultous times, those who volunteered to serve (the draft from WWII being over) were going to be protected in the military. Any bigotry or problems that being black/having a different religion/or from a different country of origin would cause, would not be acceptable.

Executive order 9981 was no more a "social experiment" as Navy Pride is labeling as gays serving openly in the military would be.

Apples and oranges.

Let's apply the rationale being used by those who support DADT and apply it to religion and the US Gov't protection on that. Why not DADT on religion? What if you're bunking with a muslim since there's so much hate and bigotry towards that religion? Shouldn't they keep that in their "bedrooms" so as not to "decrease morale"? If soldiers are allowed to talk about and practive their religion without impunity, why should sexuality be any different?

It would decrease morale. Religion relieves a lot of stress and provides comfort during hard times. Therefore, it would decrease military effectiveness, which obviously would be bad for the military.
 
Let's talk about military effectiveness under DADT. But first off, a link to the UCMJ. As for UCMJ being contradictory of the constitution:
Did you bother to finish reading the entire thing? Check this out.

Answering the third Marcum question in the affirmative, we conclude that the appellant’s consensual sodomy in Virginia and California “fell outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence . . . .” Stirewalt, 60 M.J. at 304 (emphasis added). In other words, the factual context for the appellant’s sodomy implicated military-specific interests that warranted prosecution by court-martial.
So pretty much what it comes down to is even though it's guarenteed in the constitution, he was still convicted and punished hard.

Let's talk about the Arabic and Farsi translators, who, due to DADT were booted from the military. Does that give us a more effective military when we have these rare folks who can translate the language of the people we're invading?

They knew the rules and broke them. Arabic and Farsi translators are no longer scarce.
 
I voted an absolute yes. Those who don't want to serve with gay people need not serve at all.

This is the exact kind of liberal one-lining that I was referring to in post 320.
 
How is there no evidence? What exactly are you disagreeing with? Posting "evidence" like the Executive Order 9981 isnt exactly evidence. I dont see how it is helping you make any sort of point.
Oh, ok. So it's an opinion which isn't based on any facts, a priori evidence, or proof. Gotcha. Let me just wipe your claim off of the debate board as completely invalid and we can move back on to the topic.
It would decrease morale.
You have yet to prove said claim.

Religion relieves a lot of stress and provides comfort during hard times.
So does sexual contact with a person's partner. Of course, if you're not aware of the fact that differing religions can cause conflict, then I can show ya some proof.

Therefore, it would decrease military effectiveness, which obviously would be bad for the military.
3rd strike and you're out.


They knew the rules and broke them.
Incorrect
Decorated soldier ‘outed’ by anonymous e-mail never admitted to charges

They never asked, he never told. The military however did pursue which IS against the act.


Arabic and Farsi translators are no longer scarce.
Here's an article that contradicts your claim. Feel free to prove yours with a more recent, credible, source.
Lack of Arabic Translators Hurting U.S.
 
This is the exact kind of liberal one-lining that I was referring to in post 320.

Your claims are spurious and without proof. So before launching partisan ad hominems, check your posts for details first.
 
Let's think about this Caine. If people would feel uncomfortable around gays, not trust them or just be disgusted to be around them, it would decrease overall effectiveness.
So, a guy who is uncomfortable around a gay guy is going to be less capable of doing his job somehow?? And how do you know this? Your entire argument is based off of pure speculation. And, someone who is somehow less effective as a member of our military and less capable of doing his/her job because they have to work near a gay needs to GROW THE **** UP! Immaturity of this level should not be encouraged nor tolerated in the military.

I can understand if you say, well, I dont agree with people feeling that way, ok fine. I can understand if you say, there is nothing wrong we gay people. Ok fine. I can understand if you say, I trust gay people, ok fine.

I, however, can not understand how you could say if people in the military feel that way, it would not increase military effectiveness.
I think you messed up your wording here, cause this doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Care to clarify?


I am not saying anything about me. I am speaking in general. I never said I am bothered about gays, but I do know how many people feel about it.
And why do you think these "people" would be less capable of doing their job the same way they do it now because they would have to work around gays. And ask these "people" does it have something to do with...
1. Taking a "comfortable" shower (if you are comfortable showering next to other butt naked guys, your probably gay).
2. Do they hate fags? (immature mentality that has no place in military life).

Yes, unfortunately, I could see that happening in some cases. Do I think it's right? No, but it doesnt mean it couldnt happen.
Yes, is immaturity of others a good reason to deny someone the privilege to serve their country?

BTW Caine, you skipped over a post entirely directed at you. I wouldnt mind if you want back and responded to it.

Umm.. If it is what I am thinking of, Did I not say I was finished talking about that, since we were going in circles and we would never agree?
I don't prefer to continue :beatdeadhorse Thanks.
 
This is the exact kind of liberal one-lining that I was referring to in post 320.

Then ignore me, Spook. It's that simple. I didn't feel like writing a long post. I support gay people being able to serve in the military and being able to serve being openly gay. I work for the federal government. If I work with a bunch of gay people and I don't like it, I can QUIT.
 
Oh, ok. So it's an opinion which isn't based on any facts, a priori evidence, or proof. Gotcha. Let me just wipe your claim off of the debate board as completely invalid and we can move back on to the topic.
So what exactly are you disagreeing with? That people in the military dont want to be around openly gay people? That some people in the military dont trust openly gay people? That some people in the military dont like gay people? What exactly are you refuting?
You have yet to prove said claim.
There is a poll on this post somewhere stating 26% (might be 24, it's around there) or something will not serve with openly gay people.

So does sexual contact with a person's partner. Of course, if you're not aware of the fact that differing religions can cause conflict, then I can show ya some proof.
Can you show me the proof that it is a problem that military personnel are complaining about, that as a whole will decrease overall effectiveness.

When I said they knew the rules, it was referring to the link that you provided in the post that I responded to. You cant call it incorrect by then adding another url because I didnt comment on this one.

I dont know exactly what happened in this case, however he says

Copas said he was never open about his sexuality in the military and suspects his accuser was someone he mistakenly befriended and apparently slighted.

This could mean a lot of things. He befriended who? How many people? Only his lovers? Someone in the military? Who knows?

Here's an article that contradicts your claim. Feel free to prove yours with a more recent, credible, source.
Lack of Arabic Translators Hurting U.S.

Electronics are replacing the need for arabic speakers. It will be awhile before we can completely replace them, but we are making progress.

link
 
So, a guy who is uncomfortable around a gay guy is going to be less capable of doing his job somehow?? And how do you know this? Your entire argument is based off of pure speculation. And, someone who is somehow less effective as a member of our military and less capable of doing his/her job because they have to work near a gay needs to GROW THE **** UP! Immaturity of this level should not be encouraged nor tolerated in the military.

I think you messed up your wording here, cause this doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Care to clarify?
Yes, allow me to clarify. What I am saying is that I can understand your opinion of thinking it is immature/stupid/whatever to not want to serve with openly-gay members because they dont like/trust/feel comfortable around/whatever.

What I cannot understand is how you would feel that it wouldnt decrease overall effectiveness, if people in fact feel that way. Does this make more sense? If it is still confusing, let me know. I will try my best to make it as clear as possible.

And why do you think these "people" would be less capable of doing their job the same way they do it now because they would have to work around gays. And ask these "people" does it have something to do with...
1. Taking a "comfortable" shower (if you are comfortable showering next to other butt naked guys, your probably gay).
2. Do they hate fags? (immature mentality that has no place in military life).

Yes, is immaturity of others a good reason to deny someone the privilege to serve their country?
See above

Umm.. If it is what I am thinking of, Did I not say I was finished talking about that, since we were going in circles and we would never agree?
I don't prefer to continue :beatdeadhorse Thanks.

I dont know, is it? I feel that this post in particular (the one I am referring to) is written very clear and indisputable. I would like you to respond to it.
 
There is a poll on this post somewhere stating 26% (might be 24, it's around there) or something will not serve with openly gay people.

The scared minority once again makes the rules for the majority.

Electronics are replacing the need for arabic speakers. It will be awhile before we can completely replace them, but we are making progress.

How does firing a valuable translator, because he is gay, and not because he's imcompetent in his field, make sense to you? It's like firing a Nascar driver simply because he'd rather be with a man then a woman. Even if he's valuable to you, you still fire him because of your personal homophobia...
 
Then ignore me, Spook. It's that simple. I didn't feel like writing a long post. I support gay people being able to serve in the military and being able to serve being openly gay.

I am sorry aps. Dont take it personal. It's just that many people are posting one line answers while ignoring all the discussion.

I work for the federal government. If I work with a bunch of gay people and I don't like it, I can QUIT.

I am in the military and if they should change the DADT policy and I dont like it, I CANT quit.
 
The scared minority once again makes the rules for the majority.
The other 74% didnt say they would support it. They said it wouldnt effect them in either direction. The 26% (which is a lot of people) said it would negatively effect them.

How does firing a valuable translator, because he is gay, and not because he's imcompetent in his field, make sense to you?
It was obviously affecting people in someway. Otherwise he would still be around.

It's like firing a Nascar driver simply because he'd rather be with a man then a woman. Even if he's valuable to you, you still fire him because of your personal homophobia...

Apples and oranges. We are talking about military effectiveness, not nascar racing.
 
Back
Top Bottom