Don't ask, don't tell

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
During the SOTU, the president said: "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

The Joint Chiefs sat there stone-faced.

Can somebody tell me why this is even an issue? Specifics, not sound bites about morale and cohesiveness.
 
you seriously don't know why this is an issue? and if you want to leave morale, cohesiveness out, why even bother discussing the issue?
 
It's funny the right wants us to believe that gay rights are different than minority rights. But, again they use the exact same arguments that were used against minorities.
 
Yurt said:
you seriously don't know why this is an issue? and if you want to leave morale, cohesiveness out, why even bother discussing the issue?
Click to expand...

Discrimination is always an issue. Specifically, how does a gay person threaten the cohesiveness of the military? You, I, and most of Americans work with gays all the time. Are you threatened by them in the workplace? at school? at church? at the mall?
 
RStringfield said:
It's funny the right wants us to believe that gay rights are different than minority rights. But, again they use the exact same arguments that were used against minorities.
Click to expand...

I've come to think that the real issue is they don't want to be standing in the shower next to a person who's gay. In other words, fear.
 
christiefan915 said:
Discrimination is always an issue. Specifically, how does a gay person threaten the cohesiveness of the military? You, I, and most of Americans work with gays all the time. Are you threatened by them in the workplace? at school? at church? at the mall?
Click to expand...

you said you don't want to talk about cohesiveness or morale, so again, why bother with this thread?
 
christiefan915 said:
Because cohesiveness is a general term and I'm looking for specifics. If you can link those two words to specific actions, go for it.
Click to expand...

:palm:

you just asked me about cohesiveness...make up your mind

i'm not in the military, so i can't speak for them. but i would imagine some issues with it would be along the lines of separating the boys and girls in the military, showers, sleeping etc....

if you want an open discussion, don't create parameters that can't be met and if they can, then don't expect an fully open discussion
 
Yurt said:
:palm:

you just asked me about cohesiveness...make up your mind

i'm not in the military, so i can't speak for them. but i would imagine some issues with it would be along the lines of separating the boys and girls in the military, showers, sleeping etc....

if you want an open discussion, don't create parameters that can't be met and if they can, then don't expect an fully open discussion
Click to expand...

What does the Washington Times tell you to say?
 
Its about time we let the serve without hiding.

When I was in, many of those in the military were convicted of something and given a choice of going to jail or joining the military. But they wouldn't allow gays in.
 
I can't find any rebuttal verbiage in the Washington Times. Reverend Moon, tell me what to do!
__________________

A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones like Yurt that need the advice.
-Bill Cosby-
 
Two words why they won't allow it; Contract Marriage.

By allowing openly gay people to serve, any sort of marriage that they enter into would have to recognized the same as straight marriage. This would effectively mean me and my buddy could go get married, reap the rewards (like over 2x pay and not having to live in the barracks), and not actually be gay. Of course such things already exist, in large numbers I might add, between straight couples in the military. But there is no way to fight this. Remove the benefits for married individuals and your retention rate will drop like a rock (currently around 25% for first timers).
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Two words why they won't allow it; Contract Marriage.

By allowing openly gay people to serve, any sort of marriage that they enter into would have to recognized the same as straight marriage. This would effectively mean me and my buddy could go get married, reap the rewards (like over 2x pay and not having to live in the barracks), and not actually be gay. Of course such things already exist, in large numbers I might add, between straight couples in the military. But there is no way to fight this. Remove the benefits for married individuals and your retention rate will drop like a rock (currently around 25% for first timers).
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've never heard this explanation given. So really it comes down to economics?
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Two words why they won't allow it; Contract Marriage.

By allowing openly gay people to serve, any sort of marriage that they enter into would have to recognized the same as straight marriage. This would effectively mean me and my buddy could go get married, reap the rewards (like over 2x pay and not having to live in the barracks), and not actually be gay. Of course such things already exist, in large numbers I might add, between straight couples in the military. But there is no way to fight this. Remove the benefits for married individuals and your retention rate will drop like a rock (currently around 25% for first timers).
Click to expand...


I don't buy this explanation. Federal law does not recognize same sex marriages at all. If you and your buddy get married in Massachusetts, according to the federal government you are still two single individuals and will be treated by the government as two single individuals.

While the military may confer benefits to heterosexual married couples, the services would have zero obligation to confer those same benefits on same-sex married couples.

Wait until tomorrow when the Senate has hearings on the repeal of DADT and you'll see why this is an issue. The issue is a political one, not and economic or "military cohesiveness issue."
 
NigelTufnel said:
I don't buy this explanation. Federal law does not recognize same sex marriages at all. If you and your buddy get married in Massachusetts, according to the federal government you are still two single individuals and will be treated by the government as two single individuals.

While the military may confer benefits to heterosexual married couples, the services would have zero obligation to confer those same benefits on same-sex married couples.

Wait until tomorrow when the Senate has hearings on the repeal of DADT and you'll see why this is an issue. The issue is a political one, not and economic or "military cohesiveness issue."
Click to expand...

If they were to confer benefits to straight couples and not married couples that would reek of discrimination. And there currently ARE gay married couples (those who got married before prop 8 passed for example). IF DADT was removed, they would have to be given the same benefits. I'm not against that, I'm just saying that's the reality.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
If they were to confer benefits to straight couples and not married couples that would reek of discrimination. And there currently ARE gay married couples (those who got married before prop 8 passed for example). IF DADT was removed, they would have to be given the same benefits. I'm not against that, I'm just saying that's the reality.
Click to expand...


If discrimination against gay people were a problem we wouldn't have DADT in the first instance. Discrimination against gay people is currently constitutionally valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top