Obama to sign law ending military gay ban

[Darias]

.


Finally...


DADT is repealed.

And it was done so via Congress - not via the courts.

And it was done with a Republican dominated House.

It will take a while before the policy goes into action, but at least it's there.

I didn't expect this to ever happen after the results of the November election.

Now the U.S. can join the rest of the world... finally.


Questions for debate:

1.) How do you feel about this?

2.) What effect do you think it will have on our military (will it look like Israel's or any of the other many countries who have equality in their armed forces? Or will it have negative repercussions?).

[Lux]

It is not wrong to fire gays if they express their orientation and willingly violate the law. DADT was a policy that was the same as any other company policy which restricted the speech of their workers, so opponents of DADT are being selective. The speech of Jurists is restricted, the speech of employees are restricted, and the speech of military officials should be no different.

Again, there is a difference between DADT and other employee restrictions. The difference is rather obvious: it targets only minority sexuality groups within the military. If the restriction was that nobody is allowed to talk about their sex life or disclose their sexual preferences while serving then the policy would still be silly, but it would no longer be discriminatory.

What does allowing heterosexuals to speak about their sex lives while forbidding everyone else to do the same imply? The truly disturbing thing about DADT is the message it sends out: That there is something very wrong with being gay, that all other soldiers would or should feel uncomfortable if gays served openly in the forces, that homosexual behavior is shameful and should be kept secret because it is not worthy of the military...

While I have no doubt that this is the opinion of many people (not necessarily anyone here), that is simply a subjective opinion and there is no reason to further impose it on everybody else.

[East of Eden]

No. An extensive study of the attitudes of the troops indicated that 70% did not believe that repealing DADT would have any significant effect on them or their mission.

Only 5% of the military was sampled in DoD’s survey. Only 20% of that 5% of our Armed Forces indicated yes to favoring repeal.

The report results are extremely misleading and skewed.

In most categories of the questions, more were directly against repeal than were directly for it.

Only 8.8% of those sampled were soldiers who were currently in combat or on ships.

Only about 20% of respondents were in all-male units, so of the 5% of the military surveyed, very few of those who responded were even in Combat Arms units (Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Combat Engineers, and Special Forces).

National leaders and the media who shout that 70% of our Armed Forces supports repeal, according to the government’s own survey, are pushing a blatant lie. Integrity is becoming a casualty of war.

So, is it okay to segregate black and whites if the majority are in favor of it?

No because this is a fallacious analogy and the two situations are incomparable. The Gay Rights movement is not comparable with the Civil Rights Movement and it's wrong for people to try to do so.

This is a speech issue, and speech is restricted in precincts where the powers at be deem it appropriate. Disneyland has the power to prevent workers from wearing 9/11 flags because they don't conform with their uniform regulations, CNN has the power to fire Rick Sanchez for exercizing free speech because they didn't conform with CNN policy, and the military should have the power to prevent Homosexuals and Heterosexuals from expressing their sexual preferences in a military setting.

Exactly. You give up your freedom of speech when entering the military. For instance, a general can't comment freely on what he thinks of the current commander in chief.

Which is one of the reasons why I don't like the military, but I digress.

And you are free not to join, as were the people who hishonestly told the recruiter they were not gay and later came out as gay.

Again, how is this new policy going to help military preparedness, or does anyone care?

[East of Eden]

It is not wrong to fire gays if they express their orientation and willingly violate the law. DADT was a policy that was the same as any other company policy which restricted the speech of their workers, so opponents of DADT are being selective. The speech of Jurists is restricted, the speech of employees are restricted, and the speech of military officials should be no different.

Again, there is a difference between DADT and other employee restrictions. The difference is rather obvious: it targets only minority sexuality groups within the military. If the restriction was that nobody is allowed to talk about their sex life or disclose their sexual preferences while serving then the policy would still be silly, but it would no longer be discriminatory.

What does allowing heterosexuals to speak about their sex lives while forbidding everyone else to do the same imply? The truly disturbing thing about DADT is the message it sends out: That there is something very wrong with being gay, that all other soldiers would or should feel uncomfortable if gays served openly in the forces, that homosexual behavior is shameful and should be kept secret because it is not worthy of the military...

It should be kept secret because it can cause big problems with unit cohesion. I just spoke to two army personel yesterday who told me this. Have you spoken to anyone in the military about this?

If people in the military do think homosexual behavior to be immoral and shameful, what to you propose to do about them, prosecute?

[Lux]

It should be kept secret because it can cause big problems with unit cohesion. I just spoke to two army personel yesterday who told me this. Have you spoken to anyone in the military about this?

Yes, I have spoken to military personel about this, some were for, some were against. That's rather anecdotal, though. Is the personal opinion of the people I know in the Army relevant to a national policy?

If people in the military do think homosexual behavior to be immoral and shameful, what to you propose to do about them, prosecute?

No, I propose they should keep their personal opinions separate from their job. I have a coworker who systematically cheats on her husband, and it is my opinion that such behavior is horrible from a moral point of view. Should I let that interfere with my performance at work for some reason?

If some individuals in the military don't like homosexuals for any given reason, they are free to avoid speaking with them in a personal setting. We are all required to interact with people we don't particularly care for at work.

[LegendarySandwich]

That is not my point. My point is that it is wrong for people to even consider and draw an analogy between the plight of gays to the plight of blacks in this country. The plight that gay people are facing is no where equal to the plight blacks had to face whether it was slavery or segregation or death by racist groups.

Scale is irrelevant to analogies. The parallels don't become pointless just because gay people don't suffer as much as black people did.

[East of Eden]

It should be kept secret because it can cause big problems with unit cohesion. I just spoke to two army personel yesterday who told me this. Have you spoken to anyone in the military about this?

Yes, I have spoken to military personel about this, some were for, some were against. That's rather anecdotal, though. Is the personal opinion of the people I know in the Army relevant to a national policy?

If people in the military do think homosexual behavior to be immoral and shameful, what to you propose to do about them, prosecute?

No, I propose they should keep their personal opinions separate from their job. I have a coworker who systematically cheats on her husband, and it is my opinion that such behavior is horrible from a moral point of view. Should I let that interfere with my performance at work for some reason?

If some individuals in the military don't like homosexuals for any given reason, they are free to avoid speaking with them in a personal setting. We are all required to interact with people we don't particularly care for at work.

You act like there is some constitutional right for people with same sex feelings to join the military and express their lifestyle choice. There isn't.

Do civilians get to OK how the military operates in everything else too?

[LiamOS]

You act like there is some constitutional right for people with same sex feelings to join the military and express their lifestyle choice. There isn't.

I, among others, don't see how what one likes to do with their genitals has any bearing on whether or not they should be capable of serving in any armed forces.

If killing people involved being straight this might be an issue, but there is no fundamental difference between a gay man and a straight man, despite what American media may lead you to believe.


If they shouldn't be able to serve in the military, why are they allowed to teach and to treat the sick? Perhaps we should just put them all in a box and hope that they all come out straight.

[WinePusher]

It should be kept secret because it can cause big problems with unit cohesion. I just spoke to two army personel yesterday who told me this. Have you spoken to anyone in the military about this?

The fact is, if I went into work the next morning and began telling my co-workers about my sexual preferences I would be fired because it is an inappropriate setting to discuss casual matters such as that. I am there to work, not to parade around telling others about how heterosexual I am.

Scale is irrelevant to analogies. The parallels don't become pointless just because gay people don't suffer as much as black people did.

This is wrong. If an analogy is to be consistent then the two parts being compared should be equal in scale. Not having the right to tell others about your sexual preferences in a military/workplace setting (which is in keeping with the policy of otehr institutions) is not the same with being a slave or being discrimianted againist and being rejected from schools or jobs because of your color and it is wrong and unjust to make any attempt to draw a parellel between the two.

[nygreenguy]

The fact is, if I went into work the next morning and began telling my co-workers about my sexual preferences I would be fired because it is an inappropriate setting to discuss casual matters such as that. I am there to work, not to parade around telling others about how heterosexual I am.

Can you name a single instance where someone has been fired from simply stating "I am heterosexual"?

This is wrong. If an analogy is to be consistent then the two parts being compared should be equal in scale. Not having the right to tell others about your sexual preferences in a military/workplace setting (which is in keeping with the policy of otehr institutions) is not the same with being a slave or being discrimianted againist and being rejected from schools or jobs because of your color and it is wrong and unjust to make any attempt to draw a parellel between the two.

Do you think discrimination against homosexuals is restricted to military service? In illinois its only recently been made illegal to not rent or sell to someone because they are gay. It wasnt until 2003 that it was forced to go to the supreme court that sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

You need to remember, prejudice and bigotry is different now than it was 60 years ago. It was out front and in the open then. Now, just as much still exists but it is much more difficult to pick out and it uses different methods than those we recognize from long ago.

[WinePusher]

The fact is, if I went into work the next morning and began telling my co-workers about my sexual preferences I would be fired because it is an inappropriate setting to discuss casual matters such as that. I am there to work, not to parade around telling others about how heterosexual I am.

Can you name a single instance where someone has been fired from simply stating "I am heterosexual"?

I cannot, but I can tell you that discussions about a persons sexuality are discouraged by employers because they are irrelevant to their purpose and fucntion, and the person listening may take it the wrong way and report it as harrasment.

This is wrong. If an analogy is to be consistent then the two parts being compared should be equal in scale. Not having the right to tell others about your sexual preferences in a military/workplace setting (which is in keeping with the policy of otehr institutions) is not the same with being a slave or being discrimianted againist and being rejected from schools or jobs because of your color and it is wrong and unjust to make any attempt to draw a parellel between the two.

Do you think discrimination against homosexuals is restricted to military service?

In the context of this thread is does. But in general, no. I think bulling gays and marginalizing them qualify as hatred and discrimination and deserve substantial attention and are similar to the plight African Americans faced. But DADT and Gay Marriage do not, IMO.