Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2009 8:03:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sorry if another thread like this already exists (I think there have only been debates on it). Anyway, I just really wanted to post this link:

The gist of it is that some 18 year veteran, a an Airforce Lieutenant with various recognition and medals of honor, was fired a few months ago just two years shy of receiving his pension because of a violation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. This heroic soldier comes from a long line of tradition (service), and estimates that the military spent over 25 million dollars training him. The social liberal in me is livid at this blatant discrimination exercised by a government-funded organization. The conservative in me (it exists, somewhere in there) is outraged at the exorbitant amount of money wasted on this soldier only to subsequently fire him and ruin his life (not to mention the army's future legal fees for all of his appeals). I don't understand why judges in the Supreme Court deemed it wrong for the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals (because it wasn't a Private organization at the time) and yet the MILITARY has been getting away with it since its inception. Hmm. Mayhaps this incident along with many others... i.e. Matthew Shepard, Janice Langbehn (the lesbian who couldn't visit her dying partner in the hospital because she wasn't a "spouse," etc.) is why gay parades exist, Ragnar: to retain a sense of dignity for one's identity despite social repercussions. o.O
President of DDO
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2009 8:15:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm a little more shocked at the fact that it costs $25,000,000 to teach someone how to kill brown people. Where the hell is that money going?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2009 8:16:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
President Obama flopped on being transparent about torture. I hope he will fight to overturn this policy, as he promised, though it seems unlikely at this point.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 7:01:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not sure what parades you've seen, the ones I've seen don't call the word "dignity" to mind.

Nonetheless, the policy is impractical, wrong, and it escapes me how exactly it passed the establishment clause, since it has nothing to do with objective operational capabilities.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:08:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I believe you understand why that opinion is subjective.

But yeah, the policy's bogus. America disappoints me. We like to think of ourselves as so progressive while everyone else is backwards. The truth is, we've got a long way to go. Maybe Conservatives should concern themselves with addressing our own nation's injustices before trying to impose upon the culture and society of others.
President of DDO
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:23:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 8:08:55 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Maybe Conservatives should concern themselves with addressing our own nation's injustices before trying to impose upon the culture and society of others.

I would rather prefer that they did not, since I am fairly certain that their idea of addressing injustices directly contradicts my and your idea of addressing injustices.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 10:22:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
How sad, that poor man should be compensated.

I've never really understood the American policy, as here in Canada we've allowed gays to serve openly since 1992. We've never had a huge fight over this, and the arguments I've heard have all come from south of the border. As far as I know with the issue here, there hasn't been any drop in performance or anything in the Canadian Forces.

http://www.palmcenter.org...

This is different because of the two idealogies of our countries, but our military also works with yours in several key areas. If homosexual CF members can work safely and effectively with US soldiers, why can't homosexual US soldiers work with straight ones safely and effectively? Doesn't make sense.
numa
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 8:53:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
there is no reason for this policy. its so that the army can continue to be misogynistic and discriminatory. its very immature. these men are supposed to be the worlds finest and bravest, and yet they deny the right to a willing and able person to serve and DEFEND OUR COUNTRY based on who they sleep with at night and say i love you to. somebody please defend this idiocracy if you dare.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 2:59:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
He broke a rule, that's why he got fired.
The only reason for your self-righteous bleating is because the rule has to do with homosexuality. (and now you all look real swell guys!)
If he broke a rule about, say, revealing classified infomation it wouldn't have made the news or this forum.

2 Peter 3:3-7 (The Message)

3-4First off, you need to know that in the last days, mockers are going to have a heyday. Reducing everything to the level of their puny feelings, they'll mock, "So what's happened to the promise of his Coming? Our ancestors are dead and buried, and everything's going on just as it has from the first day of creation. Nothing's changed."

5-7They conveniently forget that long ago all the galaxies and this very planet were brought into existence out of watery chaos by God's word. Then God's word brought the chaos back in a flood that destroyed the world. The current galaxies and earth are fuel for the final fire. God is poised, ready to speak his word again, ready to give the signal for the judgment and destruction of the desecrating skeptics.

The Cross.. the Cross.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 3:11:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Rules against revealing classified information are, unlike rules against homosexuality

a. In keeping with the operational requirements of the armed forces.

b. In keeping with the Constitution.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 8:50:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/22/2009 2:59:37 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
He broke a rule, that's why he got fired.

What about the rule in ancient Rome where being Christian was illegal? Eventually a brave gun by the name of Constantine came forward and changed that law.

I know you're not going to agree with scrapping Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but I ask that you don't try and make up arguments to justify your position. Say you're homophobic and be done with it :)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2009 7:59:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/22/2009 3:11:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Rules against revealing classified information are, unlike rules against homosexuality

a. In keeping with the operational requirements of the armed forces.

b. In keeping with the Constitution.

Again, you pick another argument than the one I'm arguing.
Pick your own example rule.
He broke a rule, he goes! end. of.

Hebrews 11:1 (New King James Version)

Hebrews 11
By Faith We Understand
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2009 8:05:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/22/2009 8:50:21 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 5/22/2009 2:59:37 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
He broke a rule, that's why he got fired.

What about the rule in ancient Rome where being Christian was illegal? Eventually a brave gun by the name of Constantine came forward and changed that law.
What about it? The Christians happily broke that law.. they sang on the way to crucifixions/burnings/wild beast etc.
I think it would be easier to equate Rome with homosexuality than with Christianity!
I know you're not going to agree with scrapping Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but I ask that you don't try and make up arguments to justify your position. Say you're homophobic and be done with it :)
On the contary I do not see why they do not allow 'homosexuals' into the army, it's a secular organisation.
This is about breaking the rules though. You're obsession with making yourselves righteous in your own eyes blinds you to this very simple fact.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2009 11:11:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/23/2009 7:59:19 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/22/2009 3:11:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Rules against revealing classified information are, unlike rules against homosexuality

a. In keeping with the operational requirements of the armed forces.

b. In keeping with the Constitution.

Again, you pick another argument than the one I'm arguing.
Pick your own example rule.
He broke a rule, he goes! end. of.

He swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Thus, by paying any mind to the rule in question, he'd be implicitly violating another rule.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2009 12:47:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/23/2009 8:05:30 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
What about it? The Christians happily broke that law.. they sang on the way to crucifixions/burnings/wild beast etc.

Homosexuals are doing the exact same, except now they're dancing, too.

I know you're not going to agree with scrapping Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but I ask that you don't try and make up arguments to justify your position. Say you're homophobic and be done with it :)
On the contary I do not see why they do not allow 'homosexuals' into the army, it's a secular organisation.
This is about breaking the rules though. You're obsession with making yourselves righteous in your own eyes blinds you to this very simple fact.

Oh wow. Weird.

I understand that they cannot simply break the rules that the army has set, but I would not lay blame on the homosexuals but with the army.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2009 10:18:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/23/2009 12:47:38 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 5/23/2009 8:05:30 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
What about it? The Christians happily broke that law.. they sang on the way to crucifixions/burnings/wild beast etc.

Homosexuals are doing the exact same, except now they're dancing, too.

I know you're not going to agree with scrapping Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but I ask that you don't try and make up arguments to justify your position. Say you're homophobic and be done with it :)
On the contary I do not see why they do not allow 'homosexuals' into the army, it's a secular organisation.
This is about breaking the rules though. You're obsession with making yourselves righteous in your own eyes blinds you to this very simple fact.

Oh wow. Weird.

I understand that they cannot simply break the rules that the army has set, but I would not lay blame on the homosexuals but with the army.

Homosexuals obviously are tolerated within the armed forces or else instead of having a 'Don't ask don't tell' policy they would have a 'seek and expel' policy.
Which just goes to show that this is about a RULE being broken (very important in combat situations, rules) NOT discrimination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New King James Version)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2009 12:19:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2009 10:18:18 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Homosexuals obviously are tolerated within the armed forces or else instead of having a 'Don't ask don't tell' policy they would have a 'seek and expel' policy.

Actually it is the exact opposite. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was created because Clinton had too many opponents within the army that opposed complete openness. They used to literally have a "seek and expel" policy, and if you do break the DA-DT rule, you are sought and expelled. That is discrimination, but a discrimination that is built into law.
Just because a man had broken a rule, doesn't mean that rule isn't discriminatory.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 6:44:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2009 12:19:02 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/26/2009 10:18:18 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Homosexuals obviously are tolerated within the armed forces or else instead of having a 'Don't ask don't tell' policy they would have a 'seek and expel' policy.

Actually it is the exact opposite. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was created because Clinton had too many opponents within the army that opposed complete openness. They used to literally have a "seek and expel" policy, and if you do break the DA-DT rule, you are sought and expelled. That is discrimination, but a discrimination that is built into law.
Just because a man had broken a rule, doesn't mean that rule isn't discriminatory.

"Actually it is the exact opposite." Vs "They used to"

What this really comes down to is it's a rule you all HATE.
That does not change my original point that he got fired for breaking that rule..

Romans 1:26-27 (New King James Version)
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
The Cross.. the Cross.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 9:58:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
And probably the entire point we have is that it's a ridiculous rule.
Just because a rule exists does not mean that rule is just or that we should be A OK with the unfair consequences of that rule.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 6:01:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 6:44:07 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
"Actually it is the exact opposite." Vs "They used to"

What this really comes down to is it's a rule you all HATE.
That does not change my original point that he got fired for breaking that rule..

And if there were a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for Christians?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 3:06:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 9:58:55 AM, beem0r wrote:
And probably the entire point we have is that it's a ridiculous rule.
Just because a rule exists does not mean that rule is just or that we should be A OK with the unfair consequences of that rule.

Yes, you've just restated my original position. Now you have only to see that the question of the justness of the rule and the breaking of the rule are entirely different matters.

Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 3:12:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 6:01:50 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 5/27/2009 6:44:07 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
"Actually it is the exact opposite." Vs "They used to"

What this really comes down to is it's a rule you all HATE.
That does not change my original point that he got fired for breaking that rule..


And if there were a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for Christians?

I would break it. Immediately.
I would not then try to state that I was fired or arrested for being a Christian. I would know that I was punished for revealing that I am one.
Do you see the distinction?

Isaiah 29:20-21 (New King James Version)
20 For the terrible one is brought to nothing,
The scornful one is consumed,
And all who watch for iniquity are cut off—
21 Who make a man an offender by a word,
And lay a snare for him who reproves in the gate,
And turn aside the just by empty words.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 5:47:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not sure what it's like in the army, or how their social structures are set up. "Don't ask don't tell" seems to be more for protection than for discrimination. Yes, the US is culturally backward and has a while to go, but this is a problem we can't really make go away. In keeping with that, soldiers who reveal themselves to be homosexual among the people they sleep, shower, etc. with may run into problems. Let's be honest, not all army recruits are from the coasts, where cultural diffusion is at its strongest and liberal = hip. Why make a difficult situation where one doesn't have to exist? Soldiers who will obviously be distracted by homosexuality should have that distraction taken away. How? they can't BAN them from the army, but they can prevent them from revealing it.

As for enforcement, this is a bit rough. But examples still need to be set.

I'm for the DADT because there is no way in HELL that American soldiers are ready to embrace the notion of working side by side with homosexuals. As liberal as most of us are, the majority of the U.S. just isn't mature enough yet.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 12:47:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If a soldier can't be comfortable with Teh Gheys, Kleptin, how are they supposed to be comfortable with Teh Muslims when strategic requirements dictate cooperating with civilians or even mild extremist groups in Iraq or Afghanistan? For that matter how are they supposed to be comfortable with their jobs at all?

Bullets? Meh...

OMFG that guy thinks I'm hot! I'm so scared!

Eliminating DADT will eliminate a number of soldiers who will screw up missions.

Besides which, people used to think the exact same way about a racially integrated military. See how that one worked out.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 3:33:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 3:06:18 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Now you have only to see that the question of the justness of the rule and the breaking of the rule are entirely different matters.

Sorry dawg, I'm chaotic good, not lawful neutral.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 4:25:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 5:47:31 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I'm for the DADT because there is no way in HELL that American soldiers are ready to embrace the notion of working side by side with homosexuals. As liberal as most of us are, the majority of the U.S. just isn't mature enough yet.

As I said before, the Americans work side-by-side with Canadian soldiers and I guarantee some of them are homosexual. I've never heard or seen a problem with that. Is it just because its within their own brotherhood?
Scyrone
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2009 7:34:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 3:12:16 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/27/2009 6:01:50 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 5/27/2009 6:44:07 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
"Actually it is the exact opposite." Vs "They used to"

What this really comes down to is it's a rule you all HATE.
That does not change my original point that he got fired for breaking that rule..


And if there were a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for Christians?

I would break it. Immediately.
I would not then try to state that I was fired or arrested for being a Christian. I would know that I was punished for revealing that I am one.
Do you see the distinction?

Isaiah 29:20-21 (New King James Version)
20 For the terrible one is brought to nothing,
The scornful one is consumed,
And all who watch for iniquity are cut off—
21 Who make a man an offender by a word,
And lay a snare for him who reproves in the gate,
And turn aside the just by empty words.


Dude, you are a b*stard to the tenth degree!

And stop being so arrogant (the Bible says so):

Proverbs 29:23

"Arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected."

Does it matter if he broke a rule or not? No. But what does matter is that they were not tolerant of him. Does it matter if it was a secular organization? No. He is still a citizen of the USA.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2009 2:20:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/13/2009 7:34:19 AM, Scyrone wrote:
At 6/1/2009 3:12:16 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/27/2009 6:01:50 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 5/27/2009 6:44:07 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
"Actually it is the exact opposite." Vs "They used to"

What this really comes down to is it's a rule you all HATE.
That does not change my original point that he got fired for breaking that rule..


And if there were a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for Christians?

I would break it. Immediately.
I would not then try to state that I was fired or arrested for being a Christian. I would know that I was punished for revealing that I am one.
Do you see the distinction?

Isaiah 29:20-21 (New King James Version)
20 For the terrible one is brought to nothing,
The scornful one is consumed,
And all who watch for iniquity are cut off—
21 Who make a man an offender by a word,
And lay a snare for him who reproves in the gate,
And turn aside the just by empty words.


Dude, you are a b*stard to the tenth degree!

More intellectual gems! how do you do it?

And stop being so arrogant (the Bible says so):

Proverbs 29:23

"Arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected."

Because the Word of the Living God has no power in you, it has no power for you..

Does it matter if he broke a rule or not? No. But what does matter is that they were not tolerant of him. Does it matter if it was a secular organization? No. He is still a citizen of the USA.

Ahh.. debate. Good.
Does it matter if someone in the armed forces broke a rule or not?
I should say it certainly does.
People do not run into almost certain death without a very high degree of questionless obedience.
Imagine a combat situation where soldiers suddenly felt like not obeying certain rules.

Not being tolerant of a persons sexual preferences etc is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT MATTER.
You, as others before you have, wish to confuse the issue (or just yourselves) by pretending they are the same issue.
They are not.

John 14:6 (New King James Version)
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

The Cross.. the Cross.