Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

**ThorHammer** · 02-26-2010

We now have the Commandant of the Marine Corps giving his take on the matter. Also, according to the article, the heads of the other branches are also voicing concerns. First, I think one point needs to be made perfectly clear; gays can and do serve in the United States military. Gen. Conway asks the question I think should be at the forefront of this debate: What do we gain? The debate should not be centered around whether or not everyone feels included or if it is fair. War is not fair, and the US military doesn't exist to ensure everyone feels welcome and accepted. It is there to fight and win wars.

Top US Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban

Top US Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban
Feb 25 06:15 PM US/Eastern

The head of the US Marines said on Thursday he opposed ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the first top officer to break openly with President Barack Obama over the issue.
General James Conway told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he disagreed with Obama's plan to repeal the ban.

"My best military advice to this committee, to the (defense) secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is."

Conway said the current policy worked and any bid to lift the ban should answer the question: "do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve?"

Conway's public rejection of his commander-in-chief's stance is sure to fuel debate in Congress on the issue and reflects apprehension among some senior military officers about changing the 1993 law.

The chiefs of the US Army and Air Force also expressed doubts about lifting the ban at congressional hearings this week, saying they were concerned about putting the military under further strain in the midst of two wars.

But Conway went further, making it clear he opposed lifting the ban that requires gay service members to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or face expulsion from the military.

His comments contrasted sharply with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who has spoken forcefully in favor of ending the ban.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called for a review of the issue to survey service members and examine the possible effect of changing the law, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Senator Joe Lieberman disagreed with Conway, saying he believed the review would show that allowing gays to serve openly would bolster the military's battle readiness.

"This has to pass the test of military readiness. I believe it will based on my knowledge of what's happened in other militaries," he said, citing British and Canadian forces who serve alongside American troops in Afghanistan.

Steve · 02-26-2010

As you say, gays have served, and do serve, in the armed forces. I know I've been stationed with gays, and they were among the best people I've ever had the pleasure of working with, or have work for me.

Honestly, this has nothing to do with gays. It has to do with the belief that, somehow, allowing someone to say "I'm gay" will destroy our military, and that belief only comes from those who don't want gays in the military.

While the military may not be "fair", it's counter-productive to keep a policy which is so unfair...

**ThorHammer** · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by Steve

While the military may not be "fair", it's counter-productive to keep a policy which is so unfair...

How? What are we losing and what do we have to gain?

Steve · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

How? What are we losing and what do we have to gain?

We've gained nothing with DADT. It doesn't make sense to keep it.

Conversely, if a very capable person happens to say "I'm gay", all of his or her accomplishments go out the window. It doesn't matter how good they might be; they're gone.

That's wrong, and it hurts us...

**ThorHammer** · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by Steve

Conversely, if a very capable person happens to say "I'm gay", all of his or her accomplishments go out the window. It doesn't matter how good they might be; they're gone.

That's wrong, and it hurts us...

Then that 'very capable person' demonstrated that he/she cannot follow simple instructions/orders and is, therefore, useless.

Again, like the Gen asks, how will this enhance our warfighting abilities?

Steve · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Then that 'very capable person' demonstrated that he/she cannot follow simple instructions/orders and is, therefore, useless.

It stupid to muster someone out because they say "I'm gay".

It's not a level playing field, and it should be. If we're going to discharge people who state that they're gay, then we should be willing to do it to people who state that they're straight.

Being gay or straight has nothing to do with warfighting capability. Nothing. As such, why should we permit straight service member to declare their heterosexuality? It adds nothing to our capability. Nothing.

Again, like the Gen asks, how will this enhance our warfighting abilities?

Well, being able to keep otherwise qualified people would be a start, don't you think?

The question that needs to be asked, and it's never been satisfactorily answered, is how it would hurt our warfighting ability? The answer to that needs to be devoid of emotion and of a hatred for gays. Sadly, I don't think we'll see that type of answer anytime soon...

**ThorHammer** · 02-26-2010

[QUOTE=Steve;1643707] It stupid to muster someone out because they say "I'm gay".

It is stupid to boot someone who knowingly violates a standing order? What happens when they come accross another order they don't feel is right.

Originally Posted by Steve

It's not a level playing field, and it should be. If we're going to discharge people who state that they're gay, then we should be willing to do it to people who state that they're straight.

You're damn right it isn't level. Again, we come back to it being fair. Like it or not being straight is the natural way of things.

Originally Posted by Steve

Being gay or straight has nothing to do with warfighting capability. Nothing. As such, why should we permit straight service member to declare their heterosexuality? It adds nothing to our capability. Nothing.

Bullshit. It has everything to do with warfighting capability. It is about unit cohesion.

Originally Posted by Steve

Well, being able to keep otherwise qualified people would be a start, don't you think?

Not at all, because we are talking about such a small number of people who cannot keep their mouths shut. There are plenty of gays serving right now who have no problem following the fucking rules.

Originally Posted by Steve

The question that needs to be asked, and it's never been satisfactorily answered, is how it would hurt our warfighting ability? The answer to that needs to be devoid of emotion and of a hatred for gays. Sadly, I don't think we'll see that type of answer anytime soon...

Doesn't matter. If something isn't going to gain you any advantage on the battlefield, why do it? Same thought process is used for weapon systems. Would you buy a weapon system that won't gain you any advantage simply because it won't detract from your advantage?

**compote_tom** · 02-26-2010

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar."[42] He also said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

Barry Goldwater Barry Goldwater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And we all know he was a " bleeding heart" liberal.

The question isn't can gays serve, the question is can gays serve and acknowledge openly their sexual preference. A pretty stupid question.

**ThorHammer** · 02-26-2010

And Mr. Goldwater missed the point.

**compote_tom** · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

And Mr. Goldwater missed the point.

I don't think so, merely judging someone by their actions, service, job performance, rather than how that person has sex. That is all.

**ThorHammer** · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by compote_tom

I don't think so, merely judging someone by their actions, service, job performance, rather than how that person has sex. That is all.

Which is fine and dandy, until you add the most flawed thing in the universe into the equation; man.

Given the debate going on here, and on the Hill, I see people more concerned with being fair rather than ensuring our military is in a state to win wars.

**compote_tom** · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Which is fine and dandy, until you add the most flawed thing in the universe into the equation; man.

Given the debate going on here, and on the Hill, I see people more concerned with being fair rather than ensuring our military is in a state to win wars.

That's absurd, I'm not gonna go tit for tat with you, so no doubt you'll get the last word.However, in a generation, this exchange will seem awful silly.

**ThorHammer** · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by compote_tom

That's absurd, I'm not gonna go tit for tat with you, so no doubt you'll get the last word.However, in a generation, this exchange will seem awful silly.

maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.

**drgoodtrips** · 02-26-2010

In terms of allowing gays to serve openly, trivially, you widen the applicant pool for qualified individuals. Basic labor supply and demand dictates that the demand will be better catered to by a larger supply. So, that's the 'gain'. I don't really understand the 'loss'.

**Hafke** · 02-26-2010

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

You're damn right it isn't level. Again, we come back to it being fair. Like it or not being straight is the natural way of things.

Irrelevent, even if it's true. You're saying at one point that it's all about unit cohesion. Now you're saying it's all because you think homosexuality is icky and "unnatural".

Bullshit. It has everything to do with warfighting capability. It is about unit cohesion.

The Brits let gay people serve openly. No one, not even those who threatened to leave, gave a flying fuck. Same for the Canadians.

Frankly, if the Israelis can let 'em in, then any civilised country can. They're not exactly worshipping at the altar of PC there. Seriously though, if Israel can do it, why not the US?

Not at all, because we are talking about such a small number of people who cannot keep their mouths shut. There are plenty of gays serving right now who have no problem following the fucking rules.

Fuckety fuck fuck. Ever tried following those rules? I'll respect that rule just as soon as straight people even attempt to do so. Go on, stay absolutely silent about your personal life.

Thread: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate goes on

Similar Threads

Debate Format.

August 11 GOP Debate

CNN GOP Debate in New Hampshire

US Healthcare debate - What the F*CK ?

Prostitution: The Debate

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions