Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision.
Do you feel that the military should keep the DADT policy, or do away with it and why?
I am going on common sense there are alot of Christians in the military who I am sure would not like to serve next to gays.
GOD DAMMIT DUDE THAT'S NOT COMMON SENSE
a true Christan won't care whether he's gay or not also they serve for their country i think they'd be more worried about that bullet heading for him than whether the person saving his life is gay or not
I am going on common sense there are alot of Christians in the military who I am sure would not like to serve next to gays.
This is a debate, Common sense doesn't count for much when you can't back it up. At least what everyone else has proposed has had supporting evidence. You sir are merely bumbling along under the dellusion that what you BELIEVE is true. You do not KNOW anything of what the concequences would be should gays be allowed to be open about their sexuality.
a true Christan won't care whether he's gay or not also they serve for their country i think they'd be more worried about that bullet heading for him than whether the person saving his life is gay or not
Probably but there will still be those who will care.
This is a debate, Common sense doesn't count for much when you can't back it up. At least what everyone else has proposed has had supporting evidence. You sir are merely bumbling along under the dellusion that what you BELIEVE is true. You do not KNOW anything of what the concequences would be should gays be allowed to be open about their sexuality.
You have evedince to support that people will not resign and their moral won't be effected?
Probably but there will still be those who will care.
so thats gonna be a small percentage of homophobes kinda like you so if you want to dis allow gays from serving just because 10 people don't like them then that's idiotic and un-democratic
I am going on common sense there are alot of Christians in the military who I am sure would not like to serve next to gays.
A true Christian would love them, nothing more. A bastard child of conservatism and Christianity (of which there are many) would have a problem with it. I'm in full support of it being repealed but I do get a bit annoyed when people freak out about the soldiers who want it to stay; it's their right to that opinion, get over it.
I suppose this means DREAM hasn't passed yet then. Sigh.
Though I believe all men should be treated equally, there are a few points that need to be considered. Unless something changed in these past few years, I believe that personal relationships between members of the military are still forbidden. There is a reason to this other than avoiding homosexuality, and that is avoiding relationships in general (it's similar in the police). In order to keep a cool head and be able to follow orders in all dangerous situations, it is preferable that you do not keep your mind on how your special someone is doing on the battlefield. It lowers your concentration (which endangers both you and those around you) and makes you unreliable in case your lover gets injured or killed.
If a homosexual person should be considered to be equal to any other person, only with a different sexual preference, then there should be no difference between a gay and a straight person in the military where sexuality is irrelevant. How will people even know or mind that you're gay if you don't hit on them or have sex with your fellow men (hehe), which you are not allowed to do in the first place? What's the point of being acknowledged as a gay person in the military when you're not allowed to get any? Being proud of being gay is like someone else being proud of liking fat chicks (read: "obese women" if you're a sensitive bloke) - OK in your personal life, but no place for it in the military.
So I don't think it should matter if a military person is homosexual, but should that person engage in any relationship above friendship with another person in the military then he should either quit or get ejected. Respect the rules of the group you represent, or don't represent it.
I watch the entire Autumn and Winter parades standing up in the cold. I think I can watch a homosexual parade sitting on the couch and drinking a beer.
LOL @ FREAKENSTEIN! That made me spit out my diet coke.
@Holt, listen up my friend, in this area of the forum we try to debate properly. There are a list of rules and guidelines at the top of this section that need to be followed. So far you are not following that. Please, please take the time to read that and watch how others debate.
@ Fluid, as I do agree with what you say, that interpersonal relationships shouldn't even have a home in the military, but the fact of the matter is, they do. (I know that was a run-on sentence, but I'm in a hurry) So...political reality trumps political theory.
remove DADT. so what if they're homosexual. it doesn't matter on the battlefield. sexual orientation doesn't matter when you're fighting for your country. we have religious freedom, equality for gender and race, why do we still persecute gays?
Fluid - that is a good point. And since it doesn't matter what sexual orientation you are then surely the removing of DADT would simply be a formality? Soldiering comes above all - as you said 'sexuality is irrelevant'.
In order to keep a cool head and be able to follow orders in all dangerous situations, it is preferable that you do not keep your mind on how your special someone is doing on the battlefield. It lowers your concentration (which endangers both you and those around you) and makes you unreliable in case your lover gets injured or killed.
While this is true, with DADT there are already gay guys on the battlefield, and this hasn't proven a problem.
Just to put paid to the myth that it affects combat effectiveness, in Britain gays have been allowed to serve openly for the last 10 years. In that time, in the opinion of generals and experts on the military, the operational effectiveness of the army has not been affected at all. The initial study after integration found:
''Ten months after the ban on gays in the British military was lifted, the first assessment of the consequences has found no effect on morale. A confidential MOD review says the introduction of gays has had no adverse effects on the operational forces. The conclusion will embarrass service chiefs, who fought to retain the ban, and the Conservative Pary, which has pledged to consider its reintroduction. âThere is widespread acceptance of the new policy. It has not been an issue of great debate. In fact, there has been a marked lack of reaction. Generally there has been a mature, pragmatic approach, which allowed the policy to succeed. The change in policy has been hailed as a solid achievement.â
And there have been studies done in several other countries which show:
''transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military.''
So you can say ''gay guys will get distracted by serving alongside people they are attracted to'', all you like but it has no basis in reality.
What's the point of being acknowledged as a gay person in the military when you're not allowed to get any? Being proud of being gay is like someone else being proud of liking fat chicks
It's not a matter of pride. It doesn't effect their job and they shouldn't have to hide it. The point is respecting people's rights. In addition there are a number of perks offered to heterosexual couples which gays don't have access to:
what if they added to the DADT to make it to where people couldn't say anything about sexual orientation. like no ones straight, no ones gay, there is no preference. i think that would work. well, sort of.
