• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional


Very true, mard. We are dealing with adults. Adults who are capable of controlling themselves, and behaving AS adults. There are those who cant in any group, and they need to be weeded out, and removed from the group. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. Maturity and a willingness to follow orders is what is important.

Sorry about the double post..not sure how it happened.
 

I see no reason why one should. The law is the same. And heterosexuals are not likely to be making out wwith homosexuals. And homosexuals are no more inclined to rape than anyone else, which would also be against the law. And most of the soilders I knew behaved like adults when that was the expectation. When you excuse juvinile behavior, you get what you ask for.
 

Can you force a female soldier to bunk with a male soldier?
 
I talked about: the 9th Circus doesn't have jurisdiction over military regulations.

You're right, you did say that. And now still nobody has addressed it. Not that it's definitely true; I have a suspicion that it's not. But I don't know. Does anyone have an argument against this?


Does anyone here want to talk about the actual topic? Or is just going to be another DADT should-or-shouldn't-it-be-there of a million?
 
apdst..you are not dealing with different genders. They are still male/female. You cannot compare the two.
 

actually, drinking alcohol in a combat zone is in direct violation of general order #1 and you can get discharged for violating the order.
 
And, you understand better than I because of your extensive military service. Yes?

So you actually "understand" why it's a court-martial offense to get a blow job from your wife, eh? :lol: You're still not helping to make the military look any less retarded if you say yes. There is NO reasonable basis for the military to forbid soldiers from licking ******s or dicks off duty. None. Unless you can come up with something that the rest of us reasonable folks are unable to think of that doesn't have anything to do with a poster's personal life.
 
Can you force a female soldier to bunk with a male soldier?

no, but I think you should. what the hell...this isn't the freakin middle ages. I personally think if you are going to have a coed service then everyone should ****, shave, shower and sleep together. If you can't act like a fraking responsible adult, then I don't want your immature ass serving with me.
 

I agree with you on principle, Oscar. Not sure we are ready for that, yet, but I do hope it gets to that point.
 

I think in many cases, the 9th circuit court oversteps its bounds. military matters should be left up to the DoD, joint chiefs, CiC and not some liberal court in california
 
actually, drinking alcohol in a combat zone is in direct violation of general order #1 and you can get discharged for violating the order.

For obvious reasons.. my point was that there is no need for a redundant and proactive ban on drinking for the military as a whole when it suffices to have targeted rules for specific situations, so why is this necessary for sexual conduct/orientation?
 
I think in many cases, the 9th circuit court oversteps its bounds. military matters should be left up to the DoD, joint chiefs, CiC and not some liberal court in california
Military courts do not rule on Constitutional issues.
 
Military courts do not rule on Constitutional issues.


The military is a peculiar entity. when you sign that contract you are actually giving up a few of your constitutional rights. there are things that civilians have the right to do that those in the military do not. If people don't like it, they don't have to join. so constitutionality has a slightly different meaning where the military is concerned. that's just the way it is.

I think it is a bad idea to allow a circuit court in california determine what is or is not appropriate for the entire US military. this in spite of the fact that in this particular case I actually agree with them.

a thought has just occurred: I wonder how many homosexuals and their supporters would be lobbying for gays in the military if we were in a WWI, WWII, or vietnam type conflict with hundred of soldiers being killed each day and there was a draft going on? just curious.
 
Last edited:
apdst..you are not dealing with different genders. They are still male/female. You cannot compare the two.

Hmm, I guess I would argue with this, the gender is irrelevant without the sexual component.

So, actually, a gay man bunking with other men is kind of like men/woman bunking together.

I understand both sides of this issue, its certainly not black/white as to which side is wrong.
 
You might have had a point...if this was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Today, your point fails miserably, since the rest of society handles gays with no trouble. It's not social engineering, it's being a part of society.

It almost feels like a certain segment of society just wants their own little island somewhere where there are no <insert class, race, religion, gender bias, etc> to mess with their utopia.
 

If we had a "post of the day" here, I'd nominate this one.
 

The gay lobby? WTF?! Seriously? GLBT are humans with every right inherent to humans, constitution or no.
 
Hmm, I guess I would argue with this, the gender is irrelevant without the sexual component.

So, actually, a gay man bunking with other men is kind of like men/woman bunking together.

not really, since gay men are typically not attracted to heterosexual men. If I know a fellow soldier is gay and he knows that I am not, he will be no more likely to attempt a relationnship with me than a straight guy.

To suggest that gay and straight men cannot share the same billets underestimates the character of the american soldier.
 
If the assumption is that every single gay soldier is a sex crazed maniac that'll rape the other soldiers...

Just because there are 2 gay people in a unit, does not mean they will automatically fuck...

The rules of liking someone still apply...

Isn't this the same argument for why women shouldn't be serving in the armed forces?
 

I don't know what gay experiences you have had, but I can personally attest to gay men being attracted to me (hetero) on multiple occasions. Attraction doesn't start/stop based on a checklist.

I'm attracted to lesbians, so conversely I would also point out that idea is false.
 

<helpful> You forgot that it makes baby jeebuz cry.
 
Isn't this the same argument for why women shouldn't be serving in the armed forces?

No because gender is a proven genetic trait unlike homosexuality.
 


see the more important part of my statement. If he knows I am straight and not interested he is not going to waste his time by attempting to "seduce" me. and therefore I have no reason to fear him being billeted with me.
 
Last edited:
No because gender is a proven genetic trait unlike homosexuality.

What is it today, nobody can stay on topic??

The point being made that I'm responding to - work off of that. NOTHING to do with whether gays are born <cough> they are </cough>. Has to do with the argument given as to why they shouldn't be allowed to serve side-by-side.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…