You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
For or against? Don't ask, don't tell
Getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell will not change the U.S. military. Do you really think that if they changed the rules that gay men in the military will come out of the closet?
What do you think would happen if a Gay G.I. let it be known that he was gay and later that day he was perceived to be staring at another G.I.'s junk in the shower?
From a personal friend who served in the Marines unlike President Obama or Secretary Gates, he believes that it will have adverse effects because before it didn't matter whether someone was gay or cared, but now, it will change how soldiers interact with one another.
As someone who is currently serving I don't think it makes much difference at all. Most showers these days (depending on where you are at) have dividers so you get more privacy. If you're really that concerned about someone staring at your naughty bits, you always have the option of covering them up with your hand. Problem solved.
No, it is certainly not "problem solved". I too am enlisted in the service, and I don't want someone looking at my "naughty bits" whether they can see them or not. It's a matter of how we are able to get along and work together, not the shower staring itself. You of all people should understand that. I would not feel comfortable at all serving with someone who fantasized about me, and a lot of people feel the same way. When you serve, you are agreeing to suppress certain facets of your individuality for the common good. No service member should do anything that detracts from the common good. Coming out of the closet included.
No, it is certainly not "problem solved". I too am enlisted in the service, and I don't want someone looking at my "naughty bits" whether they can see them or not. It's a matter of how we are able to get along and work together, not the shower staring itself. You of all people should understand that.
How does someone being a homosexual prevent you from getting along, and working together? Irrational paranoia, should not be justification to remove or prevent someone from joining the armed forces.
I would not feel comfortable at all serving with someone who fantasized about me, and a lot of people feel the same way.
Why would you automatically assume that because a soldier is gay, that they are fantasizing about you?
When you serve, you are agreeing to suppress certain facets of your individuality for the common good. No service member should do anything that detracts from the common good. Coming out of the closet included.
When you serve you are agreeing to act in a military manner, there is no reason to suppress one's orientation, or beliefs. The military contains service-members from all different ethnic, cultural, religious and racial backgrounds...we are expected to reconcile these differences. How can anyone be expected to pretend to be something that they are not, this is unfair to ask of anyone.
According to a recent survey, 70% of people in the military will not have a problem with open gays in the military. Now, is that other 30% a significant amount to cause a problem?
For me, as long as the military is a sufficient fighting force, I don't care how discriminating it is. We don't see a huge deal over not letting women fight on the frontline, and for good reason. Men are really just better at fighting than women, in general. Don't let Hollywood fool you. And don't be a dipshit who says "I bet I know plenty of women who could kick your ass". For the LAST FUCKING TIME, this is why I use the term "in general". Men joining the military are far superior fighters to women joining the military.
War isn't a game, which is what some people need to get through their thick skulls. We can't be worrying about the "the nice thing to do" when it comes to people's lives, you assholes.
But I don't mind this law being repealed. I believe we live in a more open time, and while the law was necessary when it was passed (to actually protect gays, you dumb shits), gays, I believe, can handle serving in the military, currently.
I recently wrote a blog on the matter, check it out Link
The military has two jobs: fight our enemies, and train new people to fight. As long as the new ruling does not effect our ability to kick ass, then I don't care if there are 5 gay people serving or 50,000. So long as the job gets done, and done quick.
There are gay people in the military who've lost limbs, won purple hearts, saved their fellow soldiers, killed our enemies, died, and done everything else expected of our military.
They should be allowed a picture of their lover in the barracks, and if they choose, to be open about their personal life with those they are serving with.
They should be allowed a picture of their lover in the barracks, and if they choose, to be open about their personal life with those they are serving with.
Political correctness, as defined by the libs, dictate that people shouldn't do anything that someone may find offensive. ;)
It is funny how people that have never served in the military think they know how to run it. It is especially funny when those same people think that it should be run like the civilian world. ;)
If it got out that a soldier was gay, he will be teased and he won't have the "freedom" to "whine" to a military judge about it. Instead, he will be told to suck it up (no pun intended) or they'll find some way to discharge him (no pun intended here either).
Now, that second paragraph does NOT get a smiley because I don't think that is a funny situation at all. I'm just being pragmatic. The military has "worked" with DADT. It is possible for the military to work without DADT, but only if the soldiers behave exactly as they do know (i.e., they don't ask and they don't tell). As soon as a one (or more) gay soldier decides to "flaunt" the fact that he's gay, there will be one or more soldiers ready to provide an equal and opposite reaction. That's just life. That's just human nature. If you bet on human nature everytime, you'll win... every time.
Okay, downvote for not knowing anything about a subject, and posting multiple replies anyway.
The leader of every branch of the military before this was repealed, declared it should be repealed to congress, in recorded meetings.
A survey was taken across every branch of the military prior to this being repealed. Over 80% of all soldiers, serving, said it should be repealed.
You're arguing from a position of ignorance, for no reason but to uphold your silly party line - which the majority of your party doesn't even support anymore.
That number is padded with men who were NOT gay but used that as an excuse to get out.
However, it's a moot point. If your goal is to not to discharge a soldier simply because he's gay, then you and I are in agreement. If your goal is for a gay soldier to be "openly gay" in his day-to-day activities in the military, and be treated like everyone else by everyone else...., then...., good luck with that. He should be able to demand that the lower ranks respect the rank, but he's going to have problems with some of the soldiers that are his rank and above. That's just human nature.
You probably know 20 gay people you would never know were gay. Obviously Richards Simmons would not make the military cut. It's the chick that can run the 40 in 4 seconds and the dude that benches 350 that none would ever know were gay but for private conversations. DADT's elimination isn't about fruity gay people, it's about gay people that are pretty bad ass but accidently let it out they were gay at a party while drunk, or in an email, or whatever. If any human is risking his or her life for our right to argue online like a couple of douche bags, fuckit, let them sleep with the same sex. What the fuck should we care?
What the hell are you talking about? Who said they couldn't sleep with whoever they want? What I am saying is that.... with or without DADT, gays (Fruity [your words, not mine] or not) will have it easier if they are discrete or (if it got out), if they tried to keep it quiet. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I am saying that, This is the way it is. I am not saying that people should NOT try to change it, I am saying that, Don't expect it to change over night and certainly don't expect to be 100% successful.
It sounds to me like you are frustrated over something you don't have 100% control over. ;)
I don't really think anyone is expecting the repeal to change how troops interact with each other. The goal is to prevent the discharge of homosexual soldiers/marines/airmen/seamen/officers etc...
As I said before, it is unfair to expect someone to pretend to be something they are not. Of course there will always be bigots in the armed services, but this is why we have EO officers.
Ha ha, you said "discharge" and "homosexual" and "seamen" all in one sentence ;)
it is unfair to expect someone to pretend to be something they are not.
I don't think they have to "pretend"..... much. In the gay community you have effeminate and masculine gays. I don't see an effeminate drag queen wanting to join the army (for example). And about the only thing a masculine gay man in the armed forces has to do is not behave like it's a gay pride parade. In other words, he has to be discrete.
Now, what's so bad about being discrete? I'm a hetero and I'm not allowed to flaunt my heterosexualness at work. So why do we need "special" rules for gays. If I can get fired for being a flaming hetero, then flaming gays should be fired for the same offence.
