House passes standalone DADT bill

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I'm glad I made you laugh, but there's no need to resort to trolling. Being romantically attracted to someone will mean that you have feelings for that person that you do not have for other people in your unit. You can argue that friendships and romances are the same, but I think this is patently false. But I won't argue that point anymore, if it so offends you. I see no benefit for the military to bend over backwards to accomodate an atmosphere where favoritism WOULD happen, in the name of some nonexistent "right" to serve. fidosim

This makes no sense. Gays are already in the military and we know it. If this supposed "favortism" would cause the military to implode, would it not of already happened?

But if just being gay will make you have favortism, why is not seen on any measurable level?

How would allowing them to not be dishonorably discharged for saying the wrong thing increase romantic relationships?

I'm sorry but your stance on this issue really makes no sense and is contradicted by the facts. It just seems to be a desperate attempt to keep the status quo for fear of change.

But if just being gay will make you have favortism, why is not seen on any measurable level?

How would allowing them to not be dishonorably discharged for saying the wrong thing increase romantic relationships?

I'm sorry but your stance on this issue really makes no sense and is contradicted by the facts. It just seems to be a desperate attempt to keep the status quo for fear of change.

Pixel-Pirate

Dont ask, dont tell, shouldnt that be simple? We will not ask you if you are gay and you will not talk about it. It is simple, a lot easier on anyone.

And as i've said numerous times, if it could be detrimental, it should not be adopted.

fidosim

The obvious counter argument again is the opportunity cost of not making this change. If it could be detrimental to keep things as they are, it should be adopted.

It is simple, a lot easier on anyone.

mahlasor

The second that they destroy sex specific places for bathing and sleeping I will gladly stand with those trying to repeal DADT. If everything some of the people in this thread is saying is true, then it should have zero effect on anything.

[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

so now youre implying that gays are psychologically inferior, despite the fact they have been serving in the military for decades, with great effect (even to the point they are war heros).

I am sorry, but as Xaos said...no relevance.

Soldiers didnt want blacks in the military because they looked different. Now (some) soldiers dont want gays in the military because they "think different" (again, no relevance, because the thinking here does not effect performance). The former, when allowed to serve, had zero negative effect. The latter has already been proven to have no effect.

Learn from your history, please.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]But the point is when a policy changing has no effect. You said that policies should change only when the change is positive (neither neutral or negative).

That stance isnt the most rational compared to what I proposed. Thats one.

Secondly, while we can surely fit a lot of our ideals under the description "the military shouldnt care for social justice", it should be aimed that everything within a country are in some relevant sync. That includes society with the military.

Thats why blacks got to finally serve in the military, why women can serve in the military and so on.

Argue allyou want about blacks being less disruptive to unit cohesion back then than openly homosexuals would be now. The fact remains that blacks and women serving were definitely encouraged by syncing the military with society.

So no, what you propose is utterly false: the military doesnt change its policies only when the change is beneficial for it and nothing else.

fidosim

Trying to adjust the military to society, isnt exactly rendering it its purpose. Far from it.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

But if just being gay will make you have favortism, why is not seen on any measurable level?

How would allowing them to not be dishonorably discharged for saying the wrong thing increase romantic relationships?

I'm sorry but your stance on this issue really makes no sense and is contradicted by the facts. It just seems to be a desperate attempt to keep the status quo for fear of change.

fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="xaos"] So no relevance then?mrbojangles25

so now youre implying that gays are psychologically inferior, despite the fact they have been serving in the military for decades, with great effect (even to the point they are war heros).

I am sorry, but as Xaos said...no relevance.

Soldiers didnt want blacks in the military because they looked different. Now (some) soldiers dont want gays in the military because they "think different" (again, no relevance, because the thinking here does not effect performance). The former, when allowed to serve, had zero negative effect. The latter has already been proven to have no effect.

Learn from your history, please.

Dont ask, dont tell, shouldnt that be simple? We will not ask you if you are gay and you will not talk about it. It is simple, a lot easier on anyone.

mahlasor

That kind of thinking makes me cringe. Soldiers have been discharged when they were discovered that they were gay and here's the kicker: Most of them never admitted that they were gay Officials discovered them through emails and looking through their personal life. It has happened over the past decade and there are plenty of stories on it.

Also, there's no evidence that gays have a detrimental effect on the military. It was proven when other militaries got rid of their policies and proven with the Pentagon study. In fact, we've lost a lot of good soldiers who happened to be doctors and translators who were vital to the war effort but were discharged for being gay That's it. It's even more insulting when the military lowered their standards by accepting mentally ill, criminals, or convicts to increase their forces when all they needed to do was get rid of DADT to encourage recruitment. That way, it could avoid having to deal withmorewar crimes, lack of credibility, or lack of progress (progress as in, progressing through the war). In fact, they would have a better chance at recruitment in colleges and high school.

And finally, it's not about social cohesian. It's about unit cohesian: A group of people working together to achieve a common goal.

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

Dont ask, dont tell, shouldnt that be simple? We will not ask you if you are gay and you will not talk about it. It is simple, a lot easier on anyone.

leviathan91

That kind of thinking makes me cringe. Soldiers have been discharged when they were discovered that they were gay and here's the kicker: Most of them never admitted that they were gay Officials discovered them through emails and looking through their personal life. It has happened over the past decade and there are plenty of stories on it.

Also, there's no evidence that gays have a detrimental effect on the military. It was proven when other militaries got rid of their policies and proven with the Pentagon study. In fact, we've lost a lot of good soldiers who happened to be doctors and translators who were vital to the war effort but were discharged for being gay That's it. It's even more insulting when the military lowered their standards by accepting mentally ill, criminals, or convicts to increase their forces when all they needed to do was get rid of DADT to encourage recruitment. That way, it could avoid having to deal withmorewar crimes, lack of credibility, or lack of progress (progress as in, progressing through the war). In fact, they would have a better chance at recruitment in colleges and high school.

And finally, it's not about social cohesian. It's about unit cohesian: A group of people working together to achieve a common goal.

Since when does the military accept the mentally ill, criminals, and convicts? Have you actually been to MEPS?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[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.LJS9502_basic

so now youre implying that gays are psychologically inferior, despite the fact they have been serving in the military for decades, with great effect (even to the point they are war heros).

I am sorry, but as Xaos said...no relevance.

Soldiers didnt want blacks in the military because they looked different. Now (some) soldiers dont want gays in the military because they "think different" (again, no relevance, because the thinking here does not effect performance). The former, when allowed to serve, had zero negative effect. The latter has already been proven to have no effect.

Learn from your history, please.

most people do because its still sort of off limits.

But the principle is the same, just not the severity of the discrimination. People lack the inability to keep things in context, and when it comes to race argumants/comparisons they tend to blow things out of proportion.

Hell, thats one major reason why prop 8 didnt pass...a large number of the black population was either A.) diehard Christian, or B.) didnt like the arguments of discrimination being compared to their struggle decades ago.