Why is repealing DADT a good idea? How does it benefit the military?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why is repealing DADT a good idea? How does it benefit the military? (Page 1 of 9)

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:00:27 AM EDT

I know a lot of people are in favor of repealing DADT for what I think are personal and selfish reasons. I'd like to hear why some think it's a good idea and how it is going to benefit the military. Please try to keep responses along those lines. I am specifically interested in how it is going to increase readiness or enhance cohesion and discipline. Let's try not to be hateful and get off track, I have my own opinion on the matter I just wanted to see what exactly are the arguments for it.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:01:07 AM EDT

[#1]

Because shut up.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:02:48 AM EDT

[#2]

Because everyone knows gays are known for their "warrior sprit"!

I think everyone would agree the military is a tough organization and what better way to keep it tough!

IMHO it will be a disaster in Combat Arms.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:04:02 AM EDT

[#3]

The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:05:54 AM EDT

[#4]

Because it damages morale and therefore the combat readiness

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:06:44 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:06:44 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

I do not dull my axe before I split wood.

Keep your tools in working order.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:07:22 AM EDT

[#7]

okay, so we're disqualifying a lot of people for military service for a number of reasons (tattoos, criminal records, mental and physical disorders), recruiting and retention are not an issue so why open this up?

Also, current service members forsake many rights, why are we interested in making an exception for homosexuals?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:08:58 AM EDT

[#8]

IMO at best its a PC feel good type thing

at worst, is another attempt to ruin our nation further so they can bring about their socialist 'utopia' which the US, our heritage, our RKBA and our Military is directly slowing down

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:09:25 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
okay, so we're disqualifying a lot of people for military service for a number of reasons (tattoos, criminal records, mental and physical disorders), recruiting and retention are not an issue so why open this up?

Also, current service members forsake many rights, why are we interested in making an exception for homosexuals?

The bottom line is that this is being pushed by people who care less abotu how effective the military is than they do a social agenda.

Period.

They can't demonstrate otherwise.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:09:31 AM EDT

[#10]

It does not benefit the military, it benefits the politicians.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:11:00 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
okay, so we're disqualifying a lot of people for military service for a number of reasons (tattoos, criminal records, mental and physical disorders), recruiting and retention are not an issue so why open this up?

Also, current service members forsake many rights, why are we interested in making an exception for homosexuals?

The bottom line is that this is being pushed by people who care less abotu how effective the military is than they do a social agenda.

Period.

They can't demonstrate otherwise.

I agree with you, I just wanted to see if there was any argument that actually had an merit...

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:11:32 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

A better analogy, I think, would be pointing out that I don't test the edge of my kitchen knives by slicing into my arm.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:12:25 AM EDT

[#13]

Next step is a new directive to allow gays to amend and customize their uniforms. You know spruce them up a bit with flair etc...

Express your individuality and creative talent in clothing design.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:12:56 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
okay, so we're disqualifying a lot of people for military service for a number of reasons (tattoos, criminal records, mental and physical disorders), recruiting and retention are not an issue so why open this up?

Also, current service members forsake many rights, why are we interested in making an exception for homosexuals?

The bottom line is that this is being pushed by people who care less abotu how effective the military is than they do a social agenda.

Period.

They can't demonstrate otherwise.

I agree with you, I just wanted to see if there was any argument that actually had an merit...

I have asked and asked proponets of the change for any net gain it would bring,

The only one is that it opens up the eligible recruiting/draft pool a few percentage points. But at a time when we are having no problems meeting our recruiting goals, that is a non-isssue.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:13:05 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

A better analogy, I think, would be pointing out that I don't test the edge of my kitchen knives by slicing into my arm.

So we are damaging the military by having DADT?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:14:07 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

I hesitate to do this because I know it's going to cost me (that whole dollar a post thing) but...
shouldn't there still be some cost-benefit analysis?
there are logistical and administrative issues and therefore costs to consider...why?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:14:27 AM EDT

[#17]

Congressional Record––Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla.,
is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently
published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of
alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under
unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she
identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon
Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to
atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in
atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the
United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist
affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for
war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet
satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist
domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the
U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of
Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free
elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United
States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in
progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the
U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter
is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with
its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the
world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes
these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in
the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United
States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American
institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for
socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum.
Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in
textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs
or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments,
editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion
pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms
of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to
"eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute
shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is
to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them
"censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting
pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures,
radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal,
natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with
"social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for
intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the
schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation
of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate,
old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to
cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as
selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the
teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor
part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history
since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control
over any part of the culture––education, social agencies, welfare
programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the
operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to
social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric
disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or
treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws
as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose
Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity
and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative
influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and
retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are
legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and
special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united
force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations
are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot
prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic
problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and
individuals alike.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:14:58 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

A better analogy, I think, would be pointing out that I don't test the edge of my kitchen knives by slicing into my arm.

So we are damaging the military by having DADT?

No, you have missed the mark.

We are damaging the republic by institutionalizing bigotry against gays.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:15:26 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

A better analogy, I think, would be pointing out that I don't test the edge of my kitchen knives by slicing into my arm.

Sure, if you are advocating a liberal agenda developed from a sociology perspective rather than an understanding of what it takes to maintain an effective fighting force.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:17:05 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

A better analogy, I think, would be pointing out that I don't test the edge of my kitchen knives by slicing into my arm.

So we are damaging the military by having DADT?

No, you have missed the mark.

We are damaging the republic by institutionalizing bigotry against gays.

Sure thing.

It is a volunteer force.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:17:16 AM EDT

[#21]

I wasn't in the military so I have no idea what the repercussions, if any, are. I suspect it has to do with unit cohesiveness.

As long as the top military brass think it is a bad idea, I will defer to their judgment. To do otherwise and think you know more than them would be foolish.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:17:49 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
okay, so we're disqualifying a lot of people for military service for a number of reasons (tattoos, criminal records, mental and physical disorders), recruiting and retention are not an issue so why open this up?

Also, current service members forsake many rights, why are we interested in making an exception for homosexuals?

The bottom line is that this is being pushed by people who care less abotu how effective the military is than they do a social agenda.

Period.

They can't demonstrate otherwise.

I agree with you, I just wanted to see if there was any argument that actually had an merit...

I have asked and asked proponets of the change for any net gain it would bring,

The only one is that it opens up the eligible recruiting/draft pool a few percentage points. But at a time when we are having no problems meeting our recruiting goals, that is a non-isssue.

gia

I have three buddies who are recruiters (Washington state, Kansas and Georgia) and they are not having any issues, they have the luxury of picking and choosing right now, many waivers are unavailable right now...I also asked my unit retention NCO, no problem making mission, they are ahead already. Opening a larger pool to recruit from is definitely not a need.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:18:59 AM EDT

[#23]

Because Democrats understand that true personal freedom means the right of the individual trumps the needs of the many.

As long as the personal freedom involves your one-eyed-willie.

If it involves any of your enumerated constitutionally protected individual rights then yeah, not so much personal freedom for you.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:20:43 AM EDT

[#24]

What is often over looked is that DADT was put in place about 1992. Repealing that would mean we go back to the way it was. You were asked before you joined if you were gay. I was asked point blank. I think we should repeal DADT and go back to the it was.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:21:47 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

A better analogy, I think, would be pointing out that I don't test the edge of my kitchen knives by slicing into my arm.

So we are damaging the military by having DADT?

No, you have missed the mark.

We are damaging the republic by institutionalizing bigotry against gays fatties.

Wait, you mean there is a difference?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:22:16 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

A better analogy, I think, would be pointing out that I don't test the edge of my kitchen knives by slicing into my arm.

So we are damaging the military by having DADT?

No, you have missed the mark.

We are damaging the republic by institutionalizing bigotry against gays.

I think we are damaging the republic by allowing the decline of values...

So, do you honestly feel that they should repeal DADT so the Military can set an example of tolerance for the rest of the country to follow?
We should do that regardless of what it does internally to the military?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:23:31 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I wasn't in the military so I have no idea what the repercussions, if any, are. I suspect it has to do with unit cohesiveness.

As long as the top military brass think it is a bad idea, I will defer to their judgment. To do otherwise and think you know more than them would be foolish.

I will defer to the lower ranks who will actually have to deal with the issue.

Military brass, more often than not, are politicians looking out for their career.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:24:48 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

A better analogy, I think, would be pointing out that I don't test the edge of my kitchen knives by slicing into my arm.

So we are damaging the military by having DADT?

No, you have missed the mark.

We are damaging the republic by institutionalizing bigotry against gays.

It is not bigotry, it is a decision based upon what works best for the institution.

Using your logic the military institutes bigotry against the disabled, diabetics, mentally ill, the fat, and tons of others.

The military also, using your logic, is bigoted against the less intelligent citizens of our nation since it rejects them.

Do you advocate we do away with all enlistment standards in the name of fairness? Or just this one?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:25:24 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Because shut up.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:25:40 AM EDT

[#30]

Legally speaking, DADT needs to go away to create federal standing for a DOMA action.

The military is a prop in all this. Its my judgement that the people creating these legal challenges don't care for the .mil one way or the other.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:26:58 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

okay, so we're disqualifying a lot of people for military service for a number of reasons (tattoos, criminal records, mental and physical disorders), recruiting and retention are not an issue so why open this up?

Also, current service members forsake many rights, why are we interested in making an exception for homosexuals?

The bottom line is that this is being pushed by people who care less abotu how effective the military is than they do a social agenda.

Period.

They can't demonstrate otherwise.

I agree with you, I just wanted to see if there was any argument that actually had an merit...

I've thought about this an awful lot, taken flak for it, and I think Garand_Shooter summed it most succinctly there. "They can't demonstrate otherwise" is both accurate and fully answers the question posed.

As far as the military benefiting the Republic - correct, but that does not mean the military must be a mirror reflection of the Republic itself. To be sure, we'd be worse off if we were defended by an average, cross-section of society. Further, as OP, many rights are curtailed by voluntarily entering military service. The argument that something applies to the military because it is a common right of citizens is founded on erroneous grounds to begin with.

The morale argument is probably actually a net loss, because, at least anecdotally, there are more Bible thumpers and un-PC dudes in the military than gays and feel-good libs. Let's even say it's 50/50, for argument's sake - empowering one group is still tantamount to forcing an offensive mandate on the others. Morale is at best a break even, which cuts in favor of the path of least resistance and expenditure - specifically, leaving the current organization alone.

OP was right to characterize it as personal and selfish in your original post. DADT is already a meaningful compromise that allows people to keep their personal shit personal and avoid a whole slew of HR issues. Ultimately, the elimination of DADT is just going to force our armed services to spend more taxpayer money on shit that has nothing to do with their missions. Practical considerations have been hashed out ad nauseum and invariably cut in favor of the current system.

Of course, this post requires the tired disclaimer reiterating that I have no problem with gays serving. But national pride has nothing to do with gay pride. There is absolutely no overriding justification to conflate the two.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:30:38 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

I don't, but the goverment does.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:39:54 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I wasn't in the military so I have no idea what the repercussions, if any, are. I suspect it has to do with unit cohesiveness.

As long as the top military brass think it is a bad idea, I will defer to their judgment. To do otherwise and think you know more than them would be foolish.

I will defer to the lower ranks who will actually have to deal with the issue.

Military brass, more often than not, are politicians looking out for their career.

I'm sure you are right.

Either way, it is a military issue that should be decided by the military. I see it as the same as which carrier group gets deployed where. How the hell can some judge or politician in Washington know better than the military about personnel issues?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:42:58 AM EDT

[#34]

The Top Brass doesn't like the idea? The same Top Brass that didn't like desegregation? Women in the military? Troops to have a rifle besides a single shot?

There will be problems but I think it will be an easier transistion than most here. In fact, I think it will be easier than integrating women into the military. Homosexuals are less than 5% of the population and the men at least are not traditionally inspired to choose a career in the armed forces.

And some of the Lesbians might be tougher than you think.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:56:01 AM EDT

[#35]

[sarcasm] I'm sure after Passing this sweeping legislation, There were lines rounding the block at the recruiting station of young homosexuals eager to serve thier country. [/sarcasm]

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:56:08 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

I don't, but the goverment does.

Do you believe that gay troops have damaged the combat readiness of the UK, Israeli, or Aussie armies?

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:59:16 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
The Top Brass doesn't like the idea? The same Top Brass that didn't like desegregation? Women in the military? Troops to have a rifle besides a single shot?

There will be problems but I think it will be an easier transistion than most here. In fact, I think it will be easier than integrating women into the military. Homosexuals are less than 5% of the population and the men at least are not traditionally inspired to choose a career in the armed forces.

And some of the Lesbians might be tougher than you think.

The individual quality of gay and lesbian soldiers has, at best, been a straw man issue. There is no doubt in my mind that homosexual service have, are, and will continue to serve with honor.

The issue is one of expression vs. privacy. Our political leadership has clearly stated that they value the right of expression for a minority over any other value with which it would come in conflict.

Posted: 10/25/2010 8:59:42 AM EDT

[#38]

Can someone point out a military in history that failed because they didn't exclude gays?

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:00:24 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

I don't, but the goverment does.

Do you believe that gay troops have damaged the combat readiness of the UK, Israeli, or Aussie armies?

According to the Brit troops I discussed that very issue with in Afghanistan, yes. They all said they end up wasting a lot of time, money and resources to accommodate and treat with kid gloves the small minority, and that if the "gay card" is thrown it makes it almost impossible to actually discipline that individual or hold them to the same standard if they can't meet it without the PC police jumping in.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:00:31 AM EDT

[#40]

Getting rid of DADT is a gateway to ferderaly accepted gay marriage.

You can't have one and not the other. These people don't give a shit about the military.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:01:04 AM EDT

[#41]

Why shouldn't we repeal DADT?

Cuz all the .mil types don't like the little faggot boys and are afraid one of them is gonna want a peep show in the shower

Nevermind that anyone whose been in high school or worked out at a public gym has probably changed next to a gay man.
Or they feel like their service is cheapened when they serve with gays, never mind that they (gays) sacrifice just as much as anyone.

This, like just about every other "desegregation," will be fought tooth and nail.
When it actually happens, I think a lot of people are going to be pissed off that it's not as big of a deal as they think.

And before anyone says it would cost too much money to build separate barracks or showers, just shove it. We pay more than that daily for welfare. I'll gladly send my taxes to let gays serve rather than give them to Octomom so she can feed her 14 kids.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:01:12 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The military is the tool of the republic, not the other way around.

As we learned from the Dreyfus Affair, benefiting the military can not be the be-all and end-all for the republic.

But as a tool, we should make decisions based upon what makes that tool operate in the most efficient manner.

Or do you go around dulling all the knives in your hosue for safety?

I don't, but the goverment does.

Do you believe that gay troops have damaged the combat readiness of the UK, Israeli, or Aussie armies?

The societies which you have named are significantly different than that of the US, and that makes a difference as to the privacy expectations the service members maintain.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:10:13 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

I wasn't in the military so I have no idea what the repercussions, if any, are. I suspect it has to do with unit cohesiveness.

As long as the top military brass think it is a bad idea, I will defer to their judgment. To do otherwise and think you know more than them would be foolish.

Always been my thought on it as well...let the military decide what the military needs to function.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:13:16 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Why shouldn't we repeal DADT?

Cuz all the .mil types don't like the little faggot boys and are afraid one of them is gonna want a peep show in the shower

Nevermind that anyone whose been in high school or worked out at a public gym has probably changed next to a gay man.
Or they feel like their service is cheapened when they serve with gays, never mind that they (gays) sacrifice just as much as anyone.

This, like just about every other "desegregation," will be fought tooth and nail.
When it actually happens, I think a lot of people are going to be pissed off that it's not as big of a deal as they think.

And before anyone says it would cost too much money to build separate barracks or showers, just shove it. We pay more than that daily for welfare. I'll gladly send my taxes to let gays serve rather than give them to Octomom so she can feed her 14 kids.

Just curious, but have you served?

ETA: I'll settle for, have you looked up the word "desegregation"?

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:15:22 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Why shouldn't we repeal DADT?

Cuz all the .mil types don't like the little faggot boys and are afraid one of them is gonna want a peep show in the shower

Nevermind that anyone whose been in high school or worked out at a public gym has probably changed next to a gay man.
Or they feel like their service is cheapened when they serve with gays, never mind that they (gays) sacrifice just as much as anyone.

This, like just about every other "desegregation," will be fought tooth and nail.
When it actually happens, I think a lot of people are going to be pissed off that it's not as big of a deal as they think.

And before anyone says it would cost too much money to build separate barracks or showers, just shove it. We pay more than that daily for welfare. I'll gladly send my taxes to let gays serve rather than give them to Octomom so she can feed her 14 kids.

so what's the benefit?
how exactly is repealing DADT going to make the military any better?
you've got your personal opinion but how is that justifying anything?

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:22:26 AM EDT

[#46]

I guess I don't really care, but I always thought it would be cool to let the grunts vote on it one way or another for themselves.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:29:24 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

I guess I don't really care, but I always thought it would be cool to let the grunts vote on it one way or another for themselves.

That's not how it works.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:30:11 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Why shouldn't we repeal DADT?

Cuz all the .mil types don't like the little faggot boys and are afraid one of them is gonna want a peep show in the shower

Nevermind that anyone whose been in high school or worked out at a public gym has probably changed next to a gay man.
Or they feel like their service is cheapened when they serve with gays, never mind that they (gays) sacrifice just as much as anyone.

This, like just about every other "desegregation," will be fought tooth and nail.
When it actually happens, I think a lot of people are going to be pissed off that it's not as big of a deal as they think.

And before anyone says it would cost too much money to build separate barracks or showers, just shove it. We pay more than that daily for welfare. I'll gladly send my taxes to let gays serve rather than give them to Octomom so she can feed her 14 kids.

Just curious, but have you served?

ETA: I'll settle for, have you looked up the word "desegregation"?

Never served, and obviously I know what desegregation means. It was in quotes for a reason.

Quoted:
so what's the benefit?
how exactly is repealing DADT going to make the military any better?
you've got your personal opinion but how is that justifying anything?

More volunteers, even if they're not needed. How any soldier could say no to another American wanting to lay their life down for their country blows my mind.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:33:31 AM EDT

[#49]

The military needs to make it's own policy in this case. Washington has no business dictating how the military operates.

Posted: 10/25/2010 9:35:04 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

More volunteers, even if they're not needed. How any soldier could say no to another American wanting to lay their life down for their country blows my mind.

You using your logic we should also stop turning away those who fail the entrance exams, diabetics, people with bad vision, who have an extra 100 pounds, and the whole host of other groups we don't accept?

Does that also blow your mind?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why is repealing DADT a good idea? How does it benefit the military? (Page 1 of 9)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us