| Should the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' be scrapped? |
| Yes |
|
86% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
13% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:17 pm |
|
| John Luck Pickard wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | | The law prevents discrimination based on various things (including sex), but yet we still have Mens and Womens public bathrooms. |
The mens and womens separation is a very good point. All of those who say that the rule should be scrapped (which is everyone here), must also agree that woman and men should no longer live in seperate buildings. What is the reason to seperate them? If it's because it's tradition, well then so is the disclusion of homosexuality. If it's because it prevents sexual relation tensions...that's the same reason that gays aren't permitted to be open. Despite what many people have said here, being gay and being in the military is not prohibited. Being openly gay while in the military is. No one's denying their right to serve their country. And don't get me wrong, I'm not homophobic in the least, I have several gay friends. I just think that the environment that's created with openly gay people in the military is deficient to productivity and is the reason why the rule still exists. |
Very well said, and I would have to say that I agree with this exactly. I would add my own comments, but this seems to be more eloquently put and complete than anything I can think of at the moment, so I will just stop there.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:25 pm |
|
Heterosexuals serve in the military with people they would be sexually attracted to, and they're open about it. Shall we have equality, then? Don't ask don't tell for heterosexuals, too, in that case. Relieve all the sexual tension, don't ya' know.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:38 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | Heterosexuals serve in the military with people they would be sexually attracted to, and they're open about it. Shall we have equality, then? Don't ask don't tell for heterosexuals, too, in that case. Relieve all the sexual tension, don't ya' know. |
Yes they are open about it, but the people they are attracted to they do not share the same buildings with, as JLPickard mentioned earlier. I would not be for them sharing the same building, because I do not think that is necessary, and I think it would undermine the team if it was different. The problem that you face when you include openly gay people into the military is that if you put them with each other, or with other people of the same sex, there is no way of positively excluding the sexual attraction aspect. On the other hand, seperating men from women is all but doing this.
Productivity wise, we are talking about the productivity of the combat unit. Spending time on hearings in court or wherever is outside of what we are looking at when we are speaking about productivity. Either way, considering Americas standing military is about 1.5 million, the percentage of members this has occured to is a minimal percent.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:42 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | Productivity will not be affected if Gays are allowed to be open. |
Is this a fact, or your opinion?
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:44 pm |
|
They may seperate the men and women for sleeping quarters, but men and women work together, and date, and even marry in the armed forces. They don't quash it just by putting them in seperate quarters. And these men and women are pretty strong to be where they are. I think they're grown up enough to deal with attraction. They have to anyway... in certain situations a soldier can't even hold the hand of their loved ones in public. They resist it because duty requires them to. They could deal with it.
I think I've said all I can say, anyway. So that's my word (nod to John Gibson).
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:34 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | WeAz wrote: | | Productivity will not be affected if Gays are allowed to be open. |
Is this a fact, or your opinion? |
Its a fact.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:56 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | Puck wrote: | | WeAz wrote: | | Productivity will not be affected if Gays are allowed to be open. |
Is this a fact, or your opinion? |
Its a fact. |
Do you have any evidence to support it?
I personally believe that having openly gay people in the military would not be a problem. I think that it's just a fear of change that's voicing itself. There may be some difficulties at first with a change in policy, but it should subside.
|
|
|
John Luck Pickard
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 150
Location: Orange Co., NY
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:13 pm |
|
Here's the way I see it. I'm leaving for the military shortly. While I'm in, I will be forced into a new lifestyle, which includes things like close sleeping quarters and community showers. I do not want to be taking a shower, and know that a certain person in there has sexual tendencies toward men. That would make me uncomfortable. Now, I understand there will likely be one or more people in that room who will be gay. And that's fine, as long as those who aren't don't know about it. Do you think that men and women should shower together? I realize that their anatomy is different, but that matters not.
-------signature-------
"Is there a John Luck Pickard here"?, -Q, Tapestry
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:16 pm |
|
| John Luck Pickard wrote: | | Here's the way I see it. I'm leaving for the military shortly. While I'm in, I will be forced into a new lifestyle, which includes things like close sleeping quarters and community showers. I do not want to be taking a shower, and know that a certain person in there has sexual tendencies toward men. That would make me uncomfortable. Now, I understand there will likely be one or more people in that room who will be gay. And that's fine, as long as those who aren't don't know about it. Do you think that men and women should shower together? I realize that their anatomy is different, but that matters not. |
Ok, fine, you have some discomfort. But where does that change th prespective of how they can handel them selves in the combat field?
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:19 pm |
|
I can understand discomfort. But gay's don't go into the military looking for sex. They go in because they want to serve.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:24 pm |
|
Well, so do both genders. You can't expect a straight man not to feel uncomfortable showering w/ a homosexual man when you wouldn't not expect the same from him were he showering with a woman.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:26 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | I can understand discomfort. But gay's don't go into the military looking for sex. They go in because they want to serve. |
Clearly they do. Why else would they risk ridicule from others, and removal from the armed forces? They want to serve their country, nothing more, nothing less. Why deny them the right to do so? To me, there no longer is any logic behind it. If they want to fight and die for their country, who are we to tell them they can't, merely because they're homosexuals?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:39 pm |
|
| Quote: | Meehan targeting 'don't ask, don't tell'
Two leading House Democrats said yesterday that they intend to reverse the 13-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays and lesbians in the military when Congress comes under Democratic control in January.
Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, said he plans to hold congressional hearings early next year of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, which he is likely to chair, on a bill that would allow homosexuals to serve in the armed forces.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/18/meehan_targeting_dont_ask_dont_tell/ |
About time!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:43 pm |
|
Something I can actually agree with the Democrats on and can actually say "Good move" about.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:44 pm |
|
I hope it gets through congress and doesn't get Vetoed or filibustered.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:06 pm |
|
I'm pretty sure Bush will veto it. And we don't have enough power to overturn that veto.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:19 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | I'm pretty sure Bush will veto it. And we don't have enough power to overturn that veto. |
That's why we need a Democrat in the white house. Like Evan Bayh! Hint Hint 
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:22 pm |
|
Better we have a Republican in office to veto this than a Democrat in office to end the NSA wiretapping program and so forth.
This is why we need someone like Guiliani in office. He wouldn't veto legislation like this but would take steps to keep America strong.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:33 pm |
|
I don't believe Evan Bayh opposes that, i think he just wants more oversight.
| Quote: | Sen Bayh on the NSA Wiretapping and Congressional Oversight:
WALLACE: Senator Bayh, how do you feel about congressional oversight? How do you feel about court oversight? And do you think the White House will go along with it?
BAYH: It's nice to have some bipartisan agreement on your show here this morning, Chris. Look, we need to do what it takes to protect this country, period. There have been some technological changes that have taken place over the last 30 years that means that we need to go about that a little bit different way, and this program is doing that.
But at the same time, I've seen no reason, as Lindsey pointed out, that we can't do what it takes to protect America while also safeguarding our civil liberties. If there are some practical problems, the administration needs to come to us and tell us what they are so we can work with them to address those.
But it is in the administration's best interest to ensure there is some neutral party overseeing this to make sure that it's done right. Otherwise, you're going to have a number of Americans out there who incorrectly think that J. Edgar Hoover has been brought back to life and that there could be abuses taking place. And we don't want people to have to think that.
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:39 pm |
|
I didn't say that Bayh would necessarily want to get rid of it. If he were to be elected I don't think I'd be unhappy with it, but I'd rather have a Republican, even a moderate yet strong Republican like Guliani, in office.
Anyways, that's not what this topic is about. I would like to see the Dems get this passed and Bush not veto it, but the latter is likely to occur.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:08 pm |
|
I am gonna state a truth that no one wants to come out. I think Bush is a homophobe.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:26 pm |
|
Do you have any facts to back that thought up? Just wondering.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:29 pm |
|
I bet the proof is that Bush is an evil Christian, thus, he's a homophobe.
I'm a Christian(Catholic) and think we should probably get rid of this rule. It probably will distract some soldiers, not to mention I bet some soldiers will attack the Gay soldiers. It will be rough at first, but maybe after some time, people will accept it and this rule is gone.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:40 pm |
|
Yeah...I do agree the rule is dumb, I mean the reasoning is just stupid, everyones like "OMG! hes looking at me!" and yet, he probably isnt. (Or she)
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:45 pm |
|
I watched a west wing episode last night and it had the dont ask dont tell in it.
I think this sums it up:
| Quote: | FITZWALLACE
[to Tate and Thompson] We�re discussing gays in the military, huh?
MAJOR THOMPSON
Yes sir.
FITZWALLACE
What do you think?
No response.
FITZWALLACE
I said what do you think?
MAJOR THOMPSON
Sir, we�re here to help the White House form a possible-
FITZWALLACE
I know. I�m asking you what you think.
MAJOR TATE
Sir, we�re not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
FITZWALLACE
You just don�t want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
MAJOR TATE
No sir, I don�t.
FITZWALLACE
�Cause they oppose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
MAJOR TATE
Yes sir.
FITZWALLACE
That�s what I think too. I also think the military wasn�t designed to be an instrument
of social change.
MAJOR TATE
Yes sir.
FITZWALLACE
The problem with that is that what they were saying to me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn�t
serve with Whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit.
The unit got over it. The unit changed. I�m an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...Beat that with a stick. [to Ken] We�ll see you, Ken.
[leaves] |
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
