The Instigator
NukeTheJuice
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
lordjosh
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

D.A.D.T Policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
NukeTheJuice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,436 times Debate No: 7033
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (7)

 

NukeTheJuice

Con

First off I'd like to say that this debate is open to any and all. However, I as the creator will not stand for comments that are insulting to the GLBT[Gay, Lesbian,Bisexual,and Trans gendered] Community.
Other than that I'm excited to see whom ever brings what ever to the table.
I will take the negation stance of this topic.

First. The D.A.D.T policy:
>The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy states that no homosexuals shall serve in the United States Military.
* And if soldiers of the United States Military are found to be homosexual, then they shall be dishonorably discharged, and stripped of all awards and rank. But Obviously if the said homosexuals are quite of who they are then they cant be removed from the military because of it. Basically, the United States Government is saying that homosexuals will be punished fro something they can not control, or they must be quite and live in a "closet"[figuratively speaking].
-http://www.equalitygiving.org...

Second. SAFE FOR LEGISLATORS.
>Polls consistently show that about two thirds of the American public support lifting the ban. Polls show majority support in all age groups, in both genders, an in both political parties.
*The Washington Post reported that the number of Americans who support gays in the military is up from 62% in 2001 and 44% in 1993.
*Seventy-five percent of Americans believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the US military.

-http://www.advocate.com...

Third. FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE
>The Pentagon has spent more than $364 million to implement the ban in the first ten years of its existence.
*So once again the government is wasting money that we don't have to keep discrimination and hatred alive.
-http://www.equalitygiving.org...

Fourth. IMPROVE NATIONAL SECURITY

>Lifting the ban ensures that Arabic linguists and other critical specialists are not fired for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Lifting the ban protects 65,000 service members from being fired by the largest employer in the country for being lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

*Majority of the 800 men and women that were discharged had special key jobs. The more men and women we have in our Military, the stronger it will be.

Fifth. Unconstitutional:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
*Basically, this states that if you are a citizen of the United States of America, then the Government can not take away your natural born rights such as Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.
-http://www.usconstitution.net...

Sixth. Hypocritical to the idea of "America".
>America is known as "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave". Except with the D.A.D.T Policy act still in play, the land of the free becomes land of what everyone else believes and which you must follow. And home of the dictators. America is about choices, and being able to be who you are. If religion can be practiced, than why cant love be practiced as well?
lordjosh

Pro

Thank you, NukeTheJuice, for opening this debate. I'll try my best not to be offensive.

I first need to say that I do support a modification of the "D.A.D.T." policies , however, not an elimination of the overall policy. That said, the "D.A.D.T." has been very effective towards the goal of having an inclusive military.

"An estimated 65,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons are currently serving on either active or reserve duty, and it is estimated that there are another one million gay, lesbian, and bisexual veterans."[1]

A poll taken by The Washington Post/ABC, conclude that in 2008, "Seventy-five percent of Americans believe that [homosexuals] should be allowed to serve in the US military.", openly, 78 percent believed they should serve. I do not dispute that there would not be an outcry of dissents if the entire "D.A.D.T." was lifted, but polls are polls. This particular poll chooses it's demographics. Here is a poll that, a: requires participant to seek the poll[2](i.e. not random phone call to whoever is home at the time)b:allows for more specified answers c: so far has sampled 200% more participants.

http://usmilitary.about.com...

Only 40% of respondents support a complete lift on the ban. The rest still support some aspect of the ban.

I fall in the 2% that believe Homosexuals should serve openly, but that homosexual conduct (as well as heterosexual conduct) should be banned between active soldiers, and sodomy should remain banned outright.

The reason why I would change the policy to allow soldiers to state their orientation is because of the potential that one can blackmail a fellow soldier or officer. I'm sure I'm in agreement with my opponent that our soldiers will perform their duties regardless of the regulations or knowledge of each others sexual orientation. And it seems that for the most part that this is exactly what has evolved from the initial policy in question. It is the other aspects that I believe must remain.
Participating in sodomy is a health concern.[3]The Congress has the obligation to retain the good health of soldiers and make any rule in pursuit of "prepar[ing] for and to prevail in combat should the need arise"[4]. The activity would also put other soldiers in unnecessary risk. The duties required by many and possibly most aspects of military operations puts soldiers at risk to exposure to disease host. There is no reason to increase this hazard by allowing personnel to engage in such risky behavior. This portion of the D.A.D.T. should not be changed. Male Homosexual acts should remain banned because the behavior demonstrates the propensity or intent to engage in sodomy. Since Lesbianism does not demonstrate the propensity or intent to engage in sodomy, females could be exempt. The military should not be burdened with having to prove an actual event, so male homosexual activity should remain banned in it's entirety.

I will pass on the financial aspect. I am sure my opponent would agree that if it were to be shown that it would cost more to lift the ban, it would not discourage her opinions.

>>>>>
>Lifting the ban ensures that Arabic linguists and other critical specialists are not fired for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Lifting the ban protects 65,000 service members from being fired by the largest employer in the country for being lesbian, gay, or bisexual.<<<<

I agree, however I don't think the military has crippled itself by firing legions of homosexual linguists. The US military is not an employer. There is no Constitutional right to serve. The 14th amendment does not prohibit the government from
" tak[ing] away your natural born rights such as Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.", and it certainly doesn't trump Art. 1 sec. 8 par. 14; ('Congress shall have the power...")To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.
If we were to concede to both a right to serve and a right to serve "gay", this would completely disrupt both military and civic affairs. Would it not be construed to shield any activity deemed "gay" from disciplinary actions, no matter how disruptive to the "high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion."[4] One of the websites my opponent endorsed demands that Congress "Amend military medical and uniform regulations that discriminate transgender[sic] servicemember[s][sic]"[5]. Yes, we should allow men to wear female uniforms. This won't invite any disruption in the daily activities of the military. Klinger never achieved his goal.
The military cannot be burdened with the problems that ensue when the privilege to serve becomes a right.

Certain provisions of the "D.A.D.T." policies should remain enforced for "[t]he primary purpose.... to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise." Including any activity that puts the soldiers at unnecessary risk.

Homosexuals in the military should be able to state their orientation, but "homosexual acts" should continue to be banned.

All acts of sexual nature both heterosexual and homosexual should be banned between soldiers while on active duty.

Congress has full authority to do as it desires and it should remain that way.

[1]http://www.palmcenter.org...

[2]This statement should not be construed to imply my being offensive to the "GLBT[Gay, Lesbian,Bisexual,and Trans gendered] Community".

[3]http://www.freerepublic.com...

[4]http://www.law.cornell.edu... thanks Tarzan

[5]equalitygiving.com Con, argument 1
Debate Round No. 1
NukeTheJuice

Con

Thats Just it, weather homosexuals are in the military or in the civilian life, they are being discriminated aganist. So why can't the military begin to make the change. Yes your also right on the fact that we can't change what people believe, but maybe we can give non-supporters a better idea of life. The military has SO much power, why not use it for good Instead of Evil.

[I want to appologise for being so late on my roud 2 argument, i will edit it and add more as soon as i can]
lordjosh

Pro

The only thing I know we're in agreement on is that homosexuals should not have to lie or or evade dissemination. At the very least, I believe that soldiers should be prohibited from male homosexual activity. I will wait for a rebuttal in the 3rd round.
Debate Round No. 2
NukeTheJuice

Con

Again im sorry for my absence ive had alot of family issues so i haven't had access to the computer.

1."Participating in sodomy is a health concern."
Weather it be homosexual act, or heterosexual act, the health concerns are still their, and thoes concerns are NOT of the military, and or the government, they are of the two people who are partaking in such action. We have choices, we choose who we engage in and what we use to protect our selves.

2."The activity would also put other soldiers in unnecessary risk."
Again, the activity isnt putting unwilling soldiers at risk. There for it isnt unnecessary risk because they choose to run that risk.

3."The duties required by many and possibly most aspects of military operations puts soldiers at risk to exposure to disease host."
There are ALOT more things that we endoure everyday that risk us to become exposed to disease. But homosexuality is not one of them. Also, homosexuals are not the only people who have desieases, heterosexuals have them as well.

"Male Homosexual acts should remain banned"
So not only are we discriminating from gay's but also men, what is this world comming to now a days?
Lets be real, the d.a.d.t policy is a joke.

"Since Lesbianism does not demonstrate the propensity or intent to engage in sodomy, females could be exempt."
Lesbian or Gay, its still homosexuality, and their shouldnt be double standards. As the same from Heterosexual to Homosexual, were all still people so their shouldnt be a double standard either.

"The military should not be burdened with having to prove an actual event"
EXACTLY! its a burden to the military to discharge every gay in the military. Lets get over the fact people are different and let our military focus on more important matters.
lordjosh

Pro

What anyone chooses to do in private, as civilians and citizens, is not the issue of this debate. We must first recognize that joining the US military places one under the jurisdiction of the military and Congress. You are no longer a civilian and any rights you have are at the sole discretion of Congress.

I put forth a logical reason for the Congress to ban the act of sodomy by military personnel. I do not believe the military should adopt my logic on the basis that it seems right to me. I have no military experience and my opponents age would restrict her experience to J.R.O.T.C. at best. I don't believe our military policies should be determined by the collective wisdom of 17 year old girls and 33 year old landscapers. More importantly, neither did the founders. Although civilian control of the military is important, it is more important to protect the military from the breezes and winds of the latest civil movement. My opponent may be entirely correct in her assertions in this debate, but we would not ask her to run the military, nor I. Our goal should be to elect the representatives that will bring wisdom, fact and practicality to the table and have faith that they will make the best decisions for implementing military affairs.

What may be fair in civilian life could be counter productive or detrimental to military affairs. My opponent has not yet made this distinction. The law does not apply, Congress has full authority over the military. We do not want military policy based on what the legislators deem "safe" to implement in accordance to public opinion. Neither I nor my opponent truly knows what would "improve national security", and my opponent has not demonstrated the the military has weakened itself due to the D.A.D.T. policy.
For theses reasons, I ask you vote pro. Not because you believe one way or the other. Because you know it is not our decision.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sparkysrath 7 years ago
sparkysrath
I am new to this site looking up the d.a.d.t policy because I was curious to see if it was going to be removed and had stumbled here. There were a lot of good points in the arguments I won't lie about that.. However, there is one point that I find hilarious and had to make a statement on it.

**It is the other aspects that I believe must remain. Participating in sodomy is a health concern.**

This is from the pro side. If you are for removing the ban then you can't just pick and chose which parts to remove, it is either all or nothing. Second, yes sodomy has it's health risks however, so does just sex. Condoms can be used to help prevent the spreading of disease, men and women use them, and I'm pretty sure that even homosexuals use them as well. No one wants an incurable disease; no one wants to be so sick that each day is going to be more painful than the last one.

I have heard while I was on active duty that the only position that the military allows for sex is missionary (face to face for those that don't know but I'm sure you do). Everyone likes to try new things for their sex life, I know I do. So why must one be ashamed to be homosexual while they serve their country? My friends that I've made while I did serve some were homosexuals and no one discriminated against them. They did their jobs and did them well some did them even better than others. It shouldn't matter if one is homosexual or heterosexual, in my honest opinion.

I think everyone should be able to freely express who they are, what sexuality they are. Not everyone may agree with me, and that's fine, everyone should have their own opinion. However, to stop one would mean you'd have to stop them all. If you took one homosexual out you'd have to take them all out, and that would decrease the ready-ness that the military has worked for. It would put us at a disadvantage. I personally think that the ban should be removed, all of it, not just parts. I think everyone should be free to be thems
Posted by lordjosh 7 years ago
lordjosh
No prob. Thanks for asking.
Posted by SchinkBR 7 years ago
SchinkBR
Ah I see. I don't totally agree with it but at least I understand it now. Thanks for explaining it.
Posted by lordjosh 7 years ago
lordjosh
SchinkBR, actually I don't claim to know what to do. I only suggested that it may be reasonable to ban male homosexual activity because such activity, unlike female homosexual behavior, has the propensity to include sodomy. Not that it is not impossible that other couples may also. Just that it is likely for male homosexuals.

My main point is that such decisions should be made in the pursuit of a superior military, not on equality. I feel my opponent has failed to demonstrate that the policy in question fails to that end. And her assertion that the law supports her position is patently false.
Posted by SchinkBR 7 years ago
SchinkBR
I don't get why you would have rules for men and not women lord.
Posted by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
"Nobody actually uses those words in any other context. There is only one thing that "ruins the sanctity of marriage" and only one thing that "hurts morale and unit cohesion" or "makes you not trust the guy next to you". There are just standard phrases that you don't run into in any other context. So very odd."

Yes and you don't hear recession if someone is not referring to the economy. Thank you, Tatarize, for pointing out that you don't encounter certain phrases in contexts to which those phrases don't apply. Who could have guessed?
Posted by NukeTheJuice 7 years ago
NukeTheJuice
Yes ill admidt, i have ALOT of misspelling errors.
And im sorry for that. but this debate isnt on spelling and grammar.
Posted by lordjosh 7 years ago
lordjosh
To the first two voters;

Spelling and Grammar?
Posted by 106627 8 years ago
106627
Whether a soldier is homosexual or not does not provide grounds for being removed from the military. I agree that sodomy can endanger others (diseases) but being gay doesn't translate into that. If a soldier is gay but is as adept as any other soldier I can see no reason for them to be discharged. Just like with heterosexual soldiers gay soldiers should not be removed for their orientation provided their behavior does not pose a threat to another soldiers well-being.
Posted by Wii_Master_Nin 8 years ago
Wii_Master_Nin
What I don't understand is why the military cares at all. My father doesn't like homosexuals at all. He served 10 years in the Army and has told me that to him it doesn't matter if the guy next to him is gay or not so long as he can shoot and do his job.

Homosexuals can perform their duties just as well as anyone so it doesn't really make sence to ban them for being public about it.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by NukeTheJuice 7 years ago
NukeTheJuice
NukeTheJuicelordjoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by hauki20 7 years ago
hauki20
NukeTheJuicelordjoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
NukeTheJuicelordjoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
NukeTheJuicelordjoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
NukeTheJuicelordjoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 7 years ago
SchinkBR
NukeTheJuicelordjoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by The_Riddler 7 years ago
The_Riddler
NukeTheJuicelordjoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70