House passes standalone DADT bill

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="fidosim"] I didn't realize it needed any more elaboration. What we think of as race is the effect that heritage has had on physical appearance. Sexual preference is a psychological trait.fidosim

That doesnt make homosexuals unsuitable for military service since they arent the ones who create the problem.

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I mean how do private companies equate to the military, taked with our national defense?HoolaHoopMan

:?

The US government says it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation however they actively do so.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="xaos"] So no relevance then?Teenaged

That doesnt make homosexuals unsuitable for military service since they arent the ones who create the problem.

I thought the relevance was made pretty clear. Physical appearance doesn't have any bearing on performance or things like unit cohesion, but psychological traits very well may. There are a number of psychological traits which can already make someone unsuitable for military service.fidosim

They just got done with their study that says that allowing openly gay members wouldn't harm the military. This "unit" cohesion nonsense needs to stop. People used that same argument when they integrated the army. Plenty of other countries around the world allow gay people to serve with out any problem.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I mean how do private companies equate to the military, taked with our national defense?fidosim

:?

The US government says it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation however they actively do so.

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Actually, no. Not at all.

1. Race is superficial and aethetic,

2. and sexuality is psychological.

1. Prove it.

2. Prove it.

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I thought the relevance was made pretty clear. Physical appearance doesn't have any bearing on performance or things like unit cohesion, but psychological traits very well may. There are a number of psychological traits which can already make someone unsuitable for military service.HoolaHoopMan

They just got done with their study that says that allowing openly gay members wouldn't harm the military. This "unit" cohesion nonsense needs to stop. People used that same argument when they integrated the army. Plenty of other countries around the world allow gay people to serve with out any problem.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I thought the relevance was made pretty clear. Physical appearance doesn't have any bearing on performance or things like unit cohesion, but psychological traits very well may. There are a number of psychological traits which can already make someone unsuitable for military service.fidosim

That doesnt make homosexuals unsuitable for military service since they arent the ones who create the problem.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

How is Don't Ask, Don't Tell unconstitutional? Back when I was in, there was an outright ban on gay service personnel. At least with DADT, gays can serve as long as they keep their secret.

WhiteKnight77

Would you rather the US military go back to an outright ban on gays in the military? One lets them serve while the other prohibits them entirely. As I said, I don't care if they want to serve, I just do not want to know that they are gay Pretty straightforward to me.

No, I'd rather they go forward to no ban at all.

Easy question!

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I thought the relevance was made pretty clear. Physical appearance doesn't have any bearing on performance or things like unit cohesion, but psychological traits very well may. There are a number of psychological traits which can already make someone unsuitable for military service.xaos

They just got done with their study that says that allowing openly gay members wouldn't harm the military. This "unit" cohesion nonsense needs to stop. People used that same argument when they integrated the army. Plenty of other countries around the world allow gay people to serve with out any problem.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Actually, no. Not at all.

1. Race is superficial and aethetic,

2. and sexuality is psychological.fidosim

1. Prove it.

2. Prove it.

Can you prove that the only differences between races are physical traits?

I ask because I have seen studies indicating some psychological differences between them.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But when people bring up unit cohesion they link it to how heterosexuals will be bothered by homosexuals;not that homosexuals themselves cant be adequate for the job or they themselves spoil unit cohesion.

That doesnt make homosexuals unsuitable for military service since they arent the ones who create the problem.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Actually the homosexuals themselves could cause the problem, because romantic attachment between gay soldiers would be waht interrupted the cohesion.fidosim

You are most definitely aware of what I am aiming at. If truly not, then I dont know what to say...

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I thought the relevance was made pretty clear. Physical appearance doesn't have any bearing on performance or things like unit cohesion, but psychological traits very well may. There are a number of psychological traits which can already make someone unsuitable for military service.HoolaHoopMan

They just got done with their study that says that allowing openly gay members wouldn't harm the military. This "unit" cohesion nonsense needs to stop. People used that same argument when they integrated the army. Plenty of other countries around the world allow gay people to serve with out any problem.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I thought the relevance was made pretty clear. Physical appearance doesn't have any bearing on performance or things like unit cohesion, but psychological traits very well may. There are a number of psychological traits which can already make someone unsuitable for military service.fidosim

That doesnt make homosexuals unsuitable for military service since they arent the ones who create the problem.

Is there a reason why our military would utterly crumble if we let gays serve openly, but the other militaries in the world that let gays serve openly have yet to crumble or be invaded?

Is our military just really crappy?

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]So can a friendship or a rivalry between ambitious men aiming for a higher spot in the hierarchy of the military.

You are most definitely aware of what I am aiming at. If truly not, then I dont know what to say...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] That would be totally different from what i'm referring to. I'm not even sure what you're aiming at, really.fidosim

You are most definitely aware of what I am aiming at. If truly not, then I dont know what to say...

I am saying that romantic relationships (or simply attraction) ruining unit cohesion is comparable to friendships and rivalries between heterosexual men that can ruin unit cohesion.

I hope this time you got what I am saying.

I love how all these people give their opinions on this bill even though they've never actually served and don't know what it is like. Not saying I've served, but I don't have an opinion on this bill. We should be focussing on Iran, not wasting our time with this stupid bill that isn't really important in the middle of a war.

Is there a reason why our military would utterly crumble if we let gays serve openly, but the other militaries in the world that let gays serve openly have yet to crumble or be invaded?

Is our military just really crappy?

I love how all these people give their opinions on this bill even though they've never actually served and don't know what it is like. Not saying I've served, but I don't have an opinion on this bill. We should be focussing on Iran, not wasting our time with this stupid bill that isn't really important in the middle of a war.

GD-1369211121

Right?

There are plenty of military leaders who disagree with the study. Plus, most countries usually end up reverting back to the banning of gays during wartime. The difference between us and them is that the US is involved in foreign conflics much more often and to a much larger degree than just about any othe rcountry.fidosim

So what? You just ignore the study that republicans, including John McCain, asked for simply because it doesn't support your views?

The secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff (highest ranking member of the military), and most importantly the commander in chief all want it repealed. Those are men who actively lead our military. I'm plenty sure that there are some military leaders that want it to stand, but we're talking about the 3 biggest names in the military all saying it needs to be repealed.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Is there a reason why our military would utterly crumble if we let gays serve openly, but the other militaries in the world that let gays serve openly have yet to crumble or be invaded?

Is our military just really crappy?

fidosim

Nope I am not saying that.

I am saying that romantic relationships (or simply attraction) ruining unit cohesion is comparable to friendships and rivalries between heterosexual men that can ruin unit cohesion.

I hope this time you got what I am saying.

Teenaged

The reason gays are not allowed to openly serve is because they could develop an affinity for one another that would break cohesion. Are you saying ambitious straight men would develop romances, or some kind of affinity? I can't really see that.fidosim

and usually claims like these go unsubstantiated. See on this side we have the recent study done by the Pentagon which says the exact opposite.

[QUOTE="fidosim"] There are plenty of military leaders who disagree with the study. Plus, most countries usually end up reverting back to the banning of gays during wartime. The difference between us and them is that the US is involved in foreign conflics much more often and to a much larger degree than just about any othe rcountry.HoolaHoopMan

So what? You just ignore the study that republicans, including John McCain, asked for simply because it doesn't support your views?

The secretary of Defense, the Chairman Joint Chiefs of staff (highest ranking member of the military), and most importantly the commander in chief all want it repealed. Those are men who actively lead our military. I'm plenty sure that there are some military leaders that want to to stand, but we're talking about the 3 biggest names in the military all saying it needs to be repealed.

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"]

I love how all these people give their opinions on this bill even though they've never actually served and don't know what it is like. Not saying I've served, but I don't have an opinion on this bill. We should be focussing on Iran, not wasting our time with this stupid bill that isn't really important in the middle of a war.

Teenaged

Right?

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Actually the homosexuals themselves could cause the problem, because romantic attachment between gay soldiers would be waht interrupted the cohesion.Lonelynight

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] There are plenty of military leaders who disagree with the study. Plus, most countries usually end up reverting back to the banning of gays during wartime. The difference between us and them is that the US is involved in foreign conflics much more often and to a much larger degree than just about any othe rcountry.fidosim

So what? You just ignore the study that republicans, including John McCain, asked for simply because it doesn't support your views?

The secretary of Defense, the Chairman Joint Chiefs of staff (highest ranking member of the military), and most importantly the commander in chief all want it repealed. Those are men who actively lead our military. I'm plenty sure that there are some military leaders that want to to stand, but we're talking about the 3 biggest names in the military all saying it needs to be repealed.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Nope I am not saying that.

I am saying that romantic relationships (or simply attraction) ruining unit cohesion is comparable to friendships and rivalries between heterosexual men that can ruin unit cohesion.

I hope this time you got what I am saying.

fidosim

If they were the same there would be no need to compare them since they are.... the same.

I looked up "espirit des corps" and I have to ask: are you sure you know what it means? Or if you do, it really makes no sense in what you said.

Regardless, friendship and rivalries are comparable to romantic attraction. I dont know its stuck to people's head that romance overwhelms people more than hate or friendship.

How is Don't Ask, Don't Tell unconstitutional? Back when I was in, there was an outright ban on gay service personnel. At least with DADT, gays can serve as long as they keep their secret. I am not against gays from serving, but I don't want to know about it or who in my unit may be checking me out while we shower. There are others who feel the same way.

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"]

I love how all these people give their opinions on this bill even though they've never actually served and don't know what it is like. Not saying I've served, but I don't have an opinion on this bill. We should be focussing on Iran, not wasting our time with this stupid bill that isn't really important in the middle of a war.

GD-1369211121

Right?

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Ok then people shouldnt have opinions on bills about taxes since they cant know how many taxes are needed since they havent been in the position of managing and utilising taxes.

Right?

Teenaged

So the Marine corps general has a bigger say than .....Robert Gates, the President, and the Chairmand of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"] That's a whole different thing, taxes effect everybody. This only effects the Military. GD-1369211121

No matter how people like to propagate the idea that in the military ones personal life doesnt exist, that is wrong.

People in the military do interact and socialise.

People shouldnt have to live double lives.

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]It affects the gay people who want to serve their country.

Teenaged

No matter how people like to propagate the idea that in the military ones personal life doesnt exist, that is wrong.

People in the military do interact and socialise.

People shouldnt have to live double lives.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Nope I am not saying that.

I am saying that romantic relationships (or simply attraction) ruining unit cohesion is comparable to friendships and rivalries between heterosexual men that can ruin unit cohesion.

I hope this time you got what I am saying.

If they were the same there would be no need to compare them since they are.... the same.

I looked up "espirit des corps" and I have to ask: are you sure you know what it means? Or if you do, it really makes no sense in what you said.

Regardless, friendship and rivalries are comparable to romantic attraction. I dont know its stuck to people's head that romance overwhelms people more than hate or friendship.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"] They can serve for their country.GD-1369211121

No matter how people like to propagate the idea that in the military ones personal life doesnt exist, that is wrong.

People in the military do interact and socialise.

People shouldnt have to live double lives.

Gay people, because they are gay could develop an affinity with each other that they would not develop with other, straight soldiers. I don't accept the idea that romantic attraction can be put on the backburner through discipline like normal friendships can. Besides, friendly affinity between soldiers can boost cohesion and morale. Favoritism, which would likely develop from romantic attraction, would detract from it.fidosim

What it all comes down to, IMO, is utility. Unless the military is wholly convinced that allowing gays to serve openly would have no detrimental effects, and would have tangibly beneficial effects, the change needn't be made. I think we can dispense with all of this malarkey about it being the civil rights issue of our time. And we can certainly dispense with the notion of this being an "urgent," "national security" need. The military shouldn't have to lift a finger to accommodate something that would not make it a better military.fidosim

No detrimental effects. How many times must I repeat myself, the Pentagon study has already said there wouldn't be any problems.

And if you're still going to need an appeal to authority on the issue how much higher can you get than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? He's the defacto leader of the military, it's highest appointed leader. Then we have the Secretary of Defense against it. Do you need every damn service member to show a hand written letter saying it's the right thing to do?

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Gay people, because they are gay could develop an affinity with each other that they would not develop with other, straight soldiers. I don't accept the idea that romantic attraction can be put on the backburner through discipline like normal friendships can. Besides, friendly affinity between soldiers can boost cohesion and morale. Favoritism, which would likely develop from romantic attraction, would detract from it.xaos

Gay people, because they are gay could develop an affinity with each other that they would not develop with other, straight soldiers. I don't accept the idea that romantic attraction can be put on the backburner through discipline like normal friendships can. Besides, friendly affinity between soldiers can boost cohesion and morale. Favoritism, which would likely develop from romantic attraction, would detract from it.fidosim

Do you perhaps any evidence to support the position of "Gays will damage unit cohesion"?

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]While having to hide their personal life.

No matter how people like to propagate the idea that in the military ones personal life doesnt exist, that is wrong.

People in the military do interact and socialise.

People shouldnt have to live double lives.

xaos

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"] They can serve for their country.GD-1369211121

No matter how people like to propagate the idea that in the military ones personal life doesnt exist, that is wrong.

People in the military do interact and socialise.

People shouldnt have to live double lives.

And besides let the soldiers themselves practice that sort of discipline.

Are you implying homosexuals cant put aside their sexuality on their own; that they lack the discipline?

[QUOTE="fidosim"] What it all comes down to, IMO, is utility. Unless the military is wholly convinced that allowing gays to serve openly would have no detrimental effects, and would have tangibly beneficial effects, the change needn't be made. I think we can dispense with all of this malarkey about it being the civil rights issue of our time. And we can certainly dispense with the notion of this being an "urgent," "national security" need. The military shouldn't have to lift a finger to accommodate something that would not make it a better military.HoolaHoopMan

No detrimental effects. How many times must I repeat myself, the Pentagon study has already said there wouldn't be any problems.

And if you're still going to need an appeal to authority on the issue how much higher can you get than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? He's the defacto leader of the military, it's highest appointed leader. Then we have the Secretary of Defense against it. Do you need every damn service member to show a hand written letter saying it's the right thing to do?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Except that it isn't comparable. Romantic attraction is a bit different from an espirit de corps between soldiers who do not share a sexual attraction to one another.

fidosim

If they were the same there would be no need to compare them since they are.... the same.

I looked up "espirit des corps" and I have to ask: are you sure you know what it means? Or if you do, it really makes no sense in what you said.

Regardless, friendship and rivalries are comparable to romantic attraction. I dont know its stuck to people's head that romance overwhelms people more than hate or friendship.

And I dont accept the idea that romantic attraction cannot be put on the backburner through the discipline like "normal" friendships can. What now?

So favouritism only develops from romantic reltaionships, or even the most?

Nice one, fidosim. It cracked me up.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] What it all comes down to, IMO, is utility. Unless the military is wholly convinced that allowing gays to serve openly would have no detrimental effects, and would have tangibly beneficial effects, the change needn't be made. I think we can dispense with all of this malarkey about it being the civil rights issue of our time. And we can certainly dispense with the notion of this being an "urgent," "national security" need. The military shouldn't have to lift a finger to accommodate something that would not make it a better military.fidosim

No detrimental effects. How many times must I repeat myself, the Pentagon study has already said there wouldn't be any problems.

And if you're still going to need an appeal to authority on the issue how much higher can you get than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? He's the defacto leader of the military, it's highest appointed leader. Then we have the Secretary of Defense against it. Do you need every damn service member to show a hand written letter saying it's the right thing to do?

and for the umpteenth time, we have a study out that says gays would not "destroy unit cohesion".

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]While having to hide their personal life.

No matter how people like to propagate the idea that in the military ones personal life doesnt exist, that is wrong.

People in the military do interact and socialise.

People shouldnt have to live double lives.

Teenaged

And besides let the soldiers themselves practice that sort of discipline.

Are you implying homosexuals cant put aside their sexuality on their own; that they lack the discipline?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"] It's the military, when your in a war sexuality should be the last thing on your mind.GD-1369211121

And besides let the soldiers themselves practice that sort of discipline.

Are you implying homosexuals cant put aside their sexuality on their own; that they lack the discipline?

[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]The military is not always in war.

And besides let the soldiers themselves practice that sort of discipline.

Are you implying homosexuals cant put aside their sexuality on their own; that they lack the discipline?

Teenaged