Don't Ask Don't Tell Debate - Denver, CO

Discuss the national Don't Ask Don't Tell debate in Denver, CO.

Should the US repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Denver votes to uphold
No
 
13
Yes
 
11

Vote now in Denver:

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
cjrian

United States

#1 Dec 17, 2010
The MSM claims that even the Joint Chiefs support the repeal. Actually, they are evenly split on this issue. The Chairman supports repeal, but the Army, Marines, and Air Force are against this. Further, two of these services are the actual boots-on-the-ground troops. The Navy is away from the face to face fighting, as are the Coast Guard. Should we give more weight to the DC desk jockeys and those who operate in safe environments or should we listen to those on the ground? I'll opt for the ground troops.
Jon

Denver, CO

#2 Dec 18, 2010
Because there are absolutely no reasons, other than fear, hate and ingnorance, for not allowing the to serve openly. THey are already there fighting. What possible difference could it make if they were now allowed to actually admit openly who thay are.
cjrian

United States

#3 Dec 18, 2010
Jon wrote:
Because there are absolutely no reasons, other than fear, hate and ingnorance, for not allowing the to serve openly. THey are already there fighting. What possible difference could it make if they were now allowed to actually admit openly who thay are.
Item - what is to fear from the homosexual lifestyle? Nothing, so there is no fear.

Item - what is to hate? Hate the sin, not the sinner. So this falls, also.

Item - Ignorance? Now this is the crux, but it is on the part of those who want the repeal of DADT. Embracing the gay life may not matter at the local WalMarts or in an office. It may not even matter in behind the lines logistics offices. But, the boots on the ground kill people and break things. Any interruption in their cohesion may cause disruption of objective, resulting in loss of (friendly) life and equipment. The homosexual life is a choice, not essential to life. Why should we risk losses to accommodate a personal choice? THAT is ignorant.

Females are not placed in front line battalions for two reasons. One, they might be a distraction. Two, should capture occur, they will face far greater danger and abuse than males. Not that females are never in firefights, though this usually occurs when an enemy overruns a position. Gays, via unit cohesion disruption, would not just cost the unit their own lives, but those of their comrades. Additionally, should they be captured, and their orientation found out, most often, they face immediate execution.

No, the ignorance is on the part of those who equate the military life with civilian life. It is not an equivalency.

Sex is an urge, not a need. It is not the same as food and water. Urges may be engaged in or not. When one chooses, and the correct word IS choose, to engage in aberrant behavior, and abberant is also the correct word, one can expect repercussions. And this is one.
I dont think so

Aurora, CO

#4 Dec 18, 2010
They just passed it. Most Americans think it's a bad idea. The military thinks its a bad idea and they just passed it. Anybody wonder why congress has an 84% disapproval rating?

I would recommend that the gays continue that policy even though it is no longer mandated. Don't ask don't tell is for the PROTECTION of the gays. The military is not a PC environment and it is certainly not a dating service. Can you guess whats going to happen when some fluffy little guy in a uniform tries to initiate a "love" interest in a trained to kill Marine?
happy_texan

United States

#5 Dec 18, 2010
I dont think so wrote:
Can you guess whats going to happen when some fluffy little guy in a uniform tries to initiate a "love" interest in a trained to kill Marine?
Why would a gay soldier hit on a straight guy? They are there to do a job not find lovers. They probably have partners back home just like the other guys.
I dont think so

Aurora, CO

#6 Dec 18, 2010
happy_texan wrote:
<quoted text>Why would a gay soldier hit on a straight guy? They are there to do a job not find lovers. They probably have partners back home just like the other guys.
They wouldn't do it twice I can guarantee that!

Statistically gay men are more promiscuous by far than any other group. Why do you think they wouldn't?
slocatch

Denver, CO

#7 Dec 18, 2010
The experts are the comanders, should head their advice. Thats why they are comanders.
Obama is going to get our young and brave killed just for a vote.
slocatch

Denver, CO

#8 Dec 18, 2010
Top brass says no, could get men killed. Obama says yes, needs votes. No brainer. Vote him out.
cjrian

United States

#9 Dec 19, 2010
As inadvisable as is is, Congress has repealed DADT.
So how about if the Feds press the Solomon Amendment on colleges that have banned the ROTC and recruiting.(The Solomon Amendment revokes funding to schools of higher education that discriminate against Military and quasi-Military presence on campus.) This Act has been on the books since 1995, isn't it time to enforce it? These schools take tax dollars, but refuse access to one of our MOST important institutions - the Military.
happy_texan

United States

#10 Dec 19, 2010
I dont think so wrote:
<quoted text>
They wouldn't do it twice I can guarantee that!
Statistically gay men are more promiscuous by far than any other group. Why do you think they wouldn't?
Statistically heterosexual marriages have a failure rate of 50%+. That would tell me that straight guys cheat alot. So I would say straight guys are more promisuous.
cjrian

United States

#11 Dec 19, 2010
happy_texan wrote:
Statistically heterosexual marriages have a failure rate of 50%+. That would tell me that straight guys cheat alot. So I would say straight guys are more promisuous.
A single statistic is impossible to compare to anything else. 50%, ok. Compared to????

BTW, both of your assumptions are entirely wrong.
Sniper

Evergreen, CO

#12 Dec 19, 2010
How do you get your facts ??? Failure rate of 50%.. Where did you hear that.And if your stats didn't specify infidelity then how do you figure that's the reason..explain your facts....Most of the broken marriages I know of had nothing to do with cheating....Including mine..But what I do know is the gays I have met in my short 50 years were kind of demented and most would have had sex with just about anyone..including kids..I have met many gay women and I don't believe I saw the same thing in them..They wanted relationships and the men were mostly demented perverts..Cjrian ,,You have brought some things to mind that I didn't think of and you are right..I don't believe in inequality but you are right..Distraction is the problem..I have no dought of the loyalty and commitment of the people who want to serve our country.But the people who have traditional values would be directly affected with that kind of controversy forced on them.. It wouldn't be fair or safe for straight guys to be shot at from the front while worrying about the rear...
cjrian

United States

#13 Dec 19, 2010
It would be interesting to know which pro-repeal reps actually served in ANY branch Military as opposed to those who voted against.

Since: Aug 09

Lake In The Hills, IL

#14 Dec 19, 2010
One of the G.O.P. votes that helped pass this was Mark Kirk from Illinois, (a R.I.N.O. P.O.S.). He was elected as the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL.
I dont think so

Aurora, CO

#15 Dec 19, 2010
happy_texan wrote:
<quoted text>Statistically heterosexual marriages have a failure rate of 50%+. That would tell me that straight guys cheat alot. So I would say straight guys are more promisuous.
Not all marriages fail due to adultery. I can't remember the exact statistics quoted but when my sister, who is a dental hygenist, had to take a class about AIDS I believe it was 90 something percent of gay men are promiscuous.

I have friends that are gay. I am not a gay basher but I do have a line I won't cross. I don't want them in the shower with me. I don't want them in my bedroom. Just like I don't want friends of the opposite sex in those places. If my bedroom is a barracks or a tent I don't want them there. It's a privacy thing.

Many gays have a tendency to view everything through an "I'm gay so they must be picking on me" attitude. Sometimes it's true, most times it's not. We are a small company, about 120 employees. Over the last 3 years we've had 3 gays work for us that accounted for 76 complaints to HR. More than all the other complaints combined. They made lists of imagined complaints. They complained when they were asked to do exactly what everybody else was asked to do. How can this attitude work in the military where you MUST follow orders? What kind of havoc will it cause in the legal system of the military?

We have also had some gays that were wonderful employees but those three really opened my eyes. We just can't have people whining instead of following orders in the military. People will die.
cjrian

United States

#16 Dec 19, 2010
I dont think so wrote:
...I am not a gay basher but I do have a line I won't cross. I don't want them in the shower with me. I don't want them in my bedroom. Just like I don't want friends of the opposite sex in those places. If my bedroom is a barracks or a tent I don't want them there. It's a privacy thing.
...
Interesting that you mention shared showers, sleeping quarters, etc

A DoD working group has determined that absolutely NO accommodations be made for either heteros or gays in these areas, stating that these would be "logistical nightmares". Sharing of communal showers, dorms, latrines would be mandated.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/military-...
Sniper

Evergreen, CO

#17 Dec 19, 2010
I would much rather shower with woman...Maybe they should try that to even things up a little..Then everyone is equally confused as to who is what..
slocatch

Denver, CO

#18 Dec 19, 2010
Sniper wrote:
I would much rather shower with woman...Maybe they should try that to even things up a little..Then everyone is equally confused as to who is what..
Now I'm really confused,LOL
Slyko

Bay City, MI

#19 Dec 20, 2010
cjrian wrote:
<quoted text>
It may not even matter in behind the lines logistics offices.
Do you realize DADT even applies there? Would you propose limiting DADT instead of repealing it?
Any interruption in their cohesion may cause disruption of objective, resulting in loss of (friendly) life and equipment. The homosexual life is a choice, not essential to life. Why should we risk losses to accommodate a personal choice? THAT is ignorant.
Religion is a personal choice. I could see how there could possibly be problems between Jews and locals in Iraq and Afghanistan or even Christians and locals. Should we just send Muslims to Iraq to avoid offending people there and so that there's "greater cohesion"?
Females are not placed in front line battalions for two reasons. One, they might be a distraction.
To an undisciplined soldier. Ironically, this excuse falls by the wayside once gays are in the military since a guy could just as easily be a distraction(and could now since there are closeted gays in the military).

And to a white racist a black man could be a distraction. He could be on the front lines constantly thinking "I can't believe they put me with this n-". So should we resegregate the military?
Two, should capture occur, they will face far greater danger and abuse than males.
And in places like Iraq or Afghanistan Jews face greater danger and abuse if captured. Should we keep Jews away from the front-lines? What about in WWII? A lot of Jewish-American soldiers were taken away by Hitler to the concentration camps. Should we have protected them by keeping them out of the war?
Sex is an urge, not a need.
Religion is an urge, not a need. Since religion is so divisive I propose requiring everybody to either be an atheist or keep their religion secret in the military.
It is not the same as food and water. Urges may be engaged in or not. When one chooses, and the correct word IS choose, to engage in aberrant behavior, and abberant is also the correct word, one can expect repercussions. And this is one.
But DADT applies regardless of whether they engage in the behavior or not. They get kicked out just for mentioning that they're "gay" even if they are being celibate. Essentially they are being kicked out just for what is on their minds.
cjrian

United States

#20 Dec 21, 2010
Slyko wrote:
Do you realize DADT even applies there? Would you propose limiting DADT instead of repealing it?
No. At least in theory every member of the Military may potentially be called to any duty. Even Doctors and Generals have manned weapons, defensively, during insurgencies, at various times. Active duty is not the same as the civilian workforce and is no place for "social engineering", especially when the goal is of specious worthiness.
Slyko wrote:
Religion is a personal choice. I could see how there could possibly be problems between Jews and locals in Iraq and Afghanistan or even Christians and locals. Should we just send Muslims to Iraq to avoid offending people there and so that there's "greater cohesion"?
Muslims, at least devout muslims, are prohibited by the koran from warring with others muslims (not that that has ever stopped them). Christians, Jews, Atheists are all hated by islamofascists (though Jews are hated slightly more) and all suffer, with a high potential for death, when captured by islamofascists.
Slyko wrote:
To an undisciplined soldier. Ironically, this excuse falls by the wayside once gays are in the military since a guy could just as easily be a distraction (and could now since there are closeted gays in the military).
And to a white racist a black man could be a distraction. He could be on the front lines constantly thinking "I can't believe they put me with this n-". So should we resegregate the military?
Second part first. Melanin content is a genetic fact that does not detract from ones worth. Racism is a defective choice, therefore the racists need to be drummed out (high potential for mental instability).

Discipline is a matter of training, yes. But given sufficient distractions, compounded by a lack of enforcement of standards, leads to disorganization. A 1997 study of female naval personnel found that pregnancy rates on deployed ships to be 18.2%. Deploying females shipboard was not supposed to be a distraction, either, but obviously is. Additionally, assuming a 30% female deployment rate, this means that in a given year, 5% of the force becomes unfit for duty through voluntary activities.

http://bit.ly/icPLSY
Slyko wrote:
And in places like Iraq or Afghanistan Jews face greater danger and abuse if captured. Should we keep Jews away from the front-lines? What about in WWII? A lot of Jewish-American soldiers were taken away by Hitler to the concentration camps. Should we have protected them by keeping them out of the war?
For the most part, and especially once Germany's agenda became known, this WAS the case, except when someone volunteered for specific theaters of operations. Issei and Nisei (first and second generation Japanese) were assigned to the European theater. Note the 442nd Infantry, primarily made up of Japanese Americans, which saw duty in Italy, southern France, and Germany and had 21 Medal of Honor recipients (the most of any battalion).
Slyko wrote:
Religion is an urge, not a need. Since religion is so divisive I propose requiring everybody to either be an atheist or keep their religion secret in the military.
Atheism is it's own religion, so that doesn't work. Atheists consider themselves to be the highest intelligence and the final arbiters of morality, thus positing themselves as "gods". Atheists are also highly evangelical and intolerant of other faiths, thus disproving their self-proclaimed "highest intelligence".
Slyko wrote:
But DADT applies regardless of whether they engage in the behavior or not. They get kicked out just for mentioning that they're "gay" even if they are being celibate. Essentially they are being kicked out just for what is on their minds.
A strong case probably could have been made that if someone claimed to be gay, but celibate, they could remain in the Service. This claim was never made, to the best of my knowledge.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 9 hr KarlVIIIII 12,533
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Wed sss 4,216
Old evidence at new trial (May '06) Wed Dad 1,110
Review: Amerimax Windows (Jul '10) Wed Jon 33
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) Wed Wondering 3,291
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) Tue Tooth Fairy 80
ISSL - Bushes legacy. What is the lure? Sep 16 Kawalski 1

Denver Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]