• 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!

Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

Partisan said:
It didn't help the muslims in Srebrenca, but I'll wait for Textmaster to post that tidbit....
Gays serving openly will cause a lack of cohesion, IMO......
Click to expand...

This point has already been debunked in another thread, so your post is the written equivalent of fail.
 

That's a good point. DADT was certainly a progressive idea at the time, but just like how the 3/5th rule was inherently wrong (although still a progressive idea), DADT is still a very bad policy.

I think you've made a very good comparison with the 3/5th rule. I'm quite impressed actually.
 
Partisan said:
As well they should, she broke the rules.....
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that the rules are obviously unfair.

The rules are such that if you are married to someone of the same sex, you can't be in the military. Yet there is also another rule that says as long as you don't make it known that you're homosexual, you can be in the military.

So which is it? Can a homosexual be in the military or not? You can't have rules having it both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…