• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

S.C. to Colleges: No Recruiters=No Fed. $$

Kelzie said:
You know it's funny. Those men used to have another rule. "We don't serve with blacks". They thought it would hurt their cohesions, see. Didn't really trust blacks, in fact they were kind of nervous around them. And the leaders said tough ****. To everyone's surprise, there were almost no problems.

It is the exact same situations.

An open gay has no traits that would make him a bad marine. The only problem is that the other marines are scared of him and will "hesitate" or whatever word you want to use. Same problems with blacks. Wasn't actually the color of their skin that was the problem, it was the way the other marines perceived them.
Click to expand...

kelzie, you have never served in the military and you have no clue what it is like to serve.......Why don't you enlist say in the Navy and then you might get a clue what life is like...........
 
Navy Pride said:
kelzie, you have never served in the military and you have no clue what it is like to serve.......Why don't you enlist say in the Navy and then you might get a clue what life is like...........
Click to expand...

Nah. I'm a pure bred military brat. That was enough for me. The fact that you can't rebut anything I said indicates that it doesn't really matter if I've served or not.
 
zymurgy said:
republicans are not conservative anymore. you are a flaming liberal.

NCLB.

"Privated SS - controlled by the goverment"

Steel Tariffs

Tax Refunds for people that paid $0 in taxes.

All sponsored by your president - the ultra-liberal.

So give the liberal name calling a rest. you look like a retard to me when you do it.
Click to expand...

Actually the proposed privitized SS is only a percent of YOUR money going into a retirement account for YOU and can not be touched by the goverment, unlike SS that gets raped whenever the federal goverment s wants/needs money, and it all goes to you or your family when you die, unlike the SS you are paying into now, that goes right to the Fed Govt!

As far as the taxes go, you mean before Bush, people who did not pay into the sytem never got a refund? WOW! Incredible!
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The fact that you can't rebut the question of unit cohesion speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

I already did. Feel free to read through the last couple pages.
 
Kelzie said:
You know it's funny. Those men used to have another rule. "We don't serve with blacks". They thought it would hurt their cohesions, see. Didn't really trust blacks, in fact they were kind of nervous around them. And the leaders said tough ****. To everyone's surprise, there were almost no problems.

It is the exact same situations.

An open gay has no traits that would make him a bad marine. The only problem is that the other marines are scared of him and will "hesitate" or whatever word you want to use. Same problems with blacks. Wasn't actually the color of their skin that was the problem, it was the way the other marines perceived them.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt your comparison dear, it's just a difference that will not solve it's self just because we are discussing it. I think if we leave this rule in place, it will eventually work it's self out, I think it's a very good first step. I just don't agree that color, and sexual preference are one in the same, blacks can't change their color, but gays can certainly keep their preference to themselves. Again, we find ourselves deadlocked, and the debate has no other direction to go, let's just agree to disagree.

You handled yourself well, and I admire your position, I just don't think we are ready for this, especially with enlistment declining!
 
Kelzie said:
I already did. Feel free to read through the last couple pages.
Click to expand...

You did not, you only implied that sexual orientation is somehow equivalent to race and that don't ask don't tell is somehow equivalent to segregation. Just answer this next question: "what is the benefit of knowing ones sexual orientation in the military?"
 
This has nothing, or very little, to do with keeping it in your pants! It has EVERYTHING to do with unit cohesion! I am glad the Brits are at a developed stage of social evolution to have no hang-ups about gays and straights serving side by side and sharing showers. You darn well know that that is not the case here in the U.S.! I can NOT turn a switch on and make guys all happy about serving with gays. Some may have no problem with it, but if even 1 has a serious problem with it and i have to take my unit into battle, you can bet I am going to be worried! I can not chance one of these gyuys hesitating or flat out choosing not to help one another because they don't like each other or the way the other lives! You can NOT bio-engineer that out of somone! And you can NOT attempt to run the military like a civilian corporation or attempt to copy someone else's military!
 
Just answer this next question: "what is the benefit of knowing ones sexual orientation in the military?"
Click to expand...

Lemme guess.... so straights will know who they can beat up and harass? Just guessing here.:confused:
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You did not, you only implied that sexual orientation is somehow equivalent to race and that don't ask don't tell is somehow equivalent to segregation. Just answer this next question: "what is the benefit of knowing ones sexual orientation in the military?"
Click to expand...

There is no benefit. There is also no harm. There's no benefit in a lot of the interaction that goes on between soldiers, but it still does. There is no benefit to knowing ones religion, but it gets shared. What the military is doing is akin to not allowing "open" jews to serve, except worse because you can choose your religion.

Since it doesn't harm anyone, than using it against a group is discrimination.
 
easyt65 said:
This has nothing, or very little, to do with keeping it in your pants! It has EVERYTHING to do with unit cohesion! I am glad the Brits are at a developed stage of social evolution to have no hang-ups about gays and straights serving side by side and sharing showers. You darn well know that that is not the case here in the U.S.! I can NOT turn a switch on and make guys all happy about serving with gays. Some may have no problem with it, but if even 1 has a serious problem with it and i have to take my unit into battle, you can bet I am going to be worried! I can not chance one of these gyuys hesitating or flat out choosing not to help one another because they don't like each other or the way the other lives! You can NOT bio-engineer that out of somone! And you can NOT attempt to run the military like a civilian corporation or attempt to copy someone else's military!
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder how black people ever made it into the military with mentalities like yours existing. :roll:
 
Kelzie said:
Sometimes I wonder how black people ever made it into the military with mentalities like yours existing. :roll:
Click to expand...

I see you're still dodging,

A) You still have not rebutted the point on unit cohesion.

B) You can not give one benefit of knowing ones sexual orientation in the military.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I see you're still dodging,

A) You still have not rebutted the point on unit cohesion.

B) You can not give one benefit of knowing ones sexual orientation in the military.
Click to expand...

You really have issues with reading the posts today.
 
Curious - Kelzie, have you ever served?
 
easyt65 said:
Curious - Kelzie, have you ever served?
Click to expand...

Both my parents did. For a long time. If you can rebut my points, please feel free to do so. Because my experience is irrelevant.
 
Kelzie said:
You really have issues with reading the posts today.
Click to expand...

No I don't you have issues with answering the questions, which this last post by you clearly demonstrates. :roll:

I posed the question about unit cohesion yesterday to which I got no rebuttle, and today you refuse to give one benefit concerning knowing ones sexual orientation in the military ie you lose.


Victory is mine!!!!
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No I don't you have issues with answering the questions, which this last post by you clearly demonstrates. :roll:

I posed the question about unit cohesion yesterday to which I got no rebuttle, and today you refuse to give one benefit concerning knowing ones sexual orientation in the military ie you lose.


Victory is mine!!!!
Click to expand...

Dude I already answered. It's on page 16. Read the thread before you post or you run the risk of looking like an ***.
 
Kelzie said:
Both my parents did. For a long time. If you can rebut my points, please feel free to do so. Because my experience is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So, your answer is, 'No'. And, my dear, your experience is NOT irrelevant in the least. Just because you say it is does not does NOT make it so and even further shows the immaturity/lack of experience in your answer.

REALITY is that when a soldier openly admits he is homosexual, it unintentionally affects the 'chemistry' and social/psychological make-up of a group. that change/shift can possibly be deadly in a combat environment where everyone must rely on everyone else, no hesitations! I am not debating if the fact that a homosexual is in the military should not matter - I would potentially agree with you. But you can not argue that my previous statement IS NOT true. YOU can not tell a squad that their newly-IDed buddy'e preferance of gay will NOT affect them adversely one bit...whether they buy into that, whether it does or not, is entirely up to them!

As a squad leader, in this example, I will do whatever it takes to eliminate any and all sources of conflict and division in my ranks before I take my team into combat...for team cohesion!

WHY did the U.S. goverment create the Tuskeegee Airmen? Why didn't they just force the Blacks and whites to fly together? You know darn well because it was for cohesion, because they hated each other, fought, and would NOT fly together...at 1st!

Just because there is a policy right now that prohibits openly gay members to join and fight in the military does not mean that is the end of it. I believe that we are in the early stages of the same thing the Tuskeegee Airmen faced. Maybe it will happen for gays, maybe not. But you can not argue that gays in the military don't matter any more than you could argue that Blacks and whites should have been thrust together back then! It took time, and the way people thought and felt could not be changed over night! I wonder how many blacks died at the hands of whites or vice versa in how many different situations in the military before we finally got to where we are today?

No, Kelzie - experience and the grasp of what I just related has EVERYTHING to do with it!
 
Kelzie said:
There is no benefit. There is also no harm. There's no benefit in a lot of the interaction that goes on between soldiers, but it still does. There is no benefit to knowing ones religion, but it gets shared. What the military is doing is akin to not allowing "open" jews to serve, except worse because you can choose your religion.

Since it doesn't harm anyone, than using it against a group is discrimination.
Click to expand...

O.K. there is no benefit that we agree on, but there is a harm it's called unit cohesion, I'm sorry but in our society there is a certain stigma that goes along with being a homosexual, and that is a variable that is not needed in a combat situation. As for your claim that sexual orientation is somehow akin to race or religion that is simply fallacious.

No benefit + potential risk = no reason whatsoever should it be needed to be known.
 
easyt65 said:
So, your answer is, 'No'. And, my dear, your experience is NOT irrelevant in the least. Just because you say it is does not does NOT make it so and even further shows the immaturity/lack of experience in your answer.

REALITY is that when a soldier openly admits he is homosexual, it unintentionally affects the 'chemistry' and social/psychological make-up of a group. that change/shift can possibly be deadly in a combat environment where everyone must rely on everyone else, no hesitations! I am not debating if the fact that a homosexual is in the military should not matter - I would potentially agree with you. But you can not argue that my previous statement IS NOT true. YOU can not tell a squad that their newly-IDed buddy'e preferance of gay will NOT affect them adversely one bit...whether they buy into that, whether it does or not, is entirely up to them!

As a squad leader, in this example, I will do whatever it takes to eliminate any and all sources of conflict and division in my ranks before I take my team into combat...for team cohesion!

WHY did the U.S. goverment create the Tuskeegee Airmen? Why didn't they just force the Blacks and whites to fly together? You know darn well because it was for cohesion, because they hated each other, fought, and would NOT fly together...at 1st!

Just because there is a policy right now that prohibits openly gay members to join and fight in the military does not mean that is the end of it. I believe that we are in the early stages of the same thing the Tuskeegee Airmen faced. Maybe it will happen for gays, maybe not. But you can not argue that gays in the military don't matter any more than you could argue that Blacks and whites should have been thrust together back then! It took time, and the way people thought and felt could not be changed over night! I wonder how many blacks died at the hands of whites or vice versa in how many different situations in the military before we finally got to where we are today?

No, Kelzie - experience and the grasp of what I just related has EVERYTHING to do with it!
Click to expand...

Hardly. One would expect that someone who claims experience would also know that when they finally did desegregate the military, the same issues were being claimed with blacks. Their previous segregated groups had little effect on easing the concerns faced by a large amount of the military. In fact, I believe I can sum up the problems they thought they'd face...


"REALITY is that when a soldier is admitted that is black, it unintentionally affects the 'chemistry' and social/psychological make-up of a group. that change/shift can possibly be deadly in a combat environment where everyone must rely on everyone else, no hesitations! I am not debating if the fact that a black in the military should not matter - I would potentially agree with you. But you can not argue that my previous statement IS NOT true. YOU can not tell a squad that their newly-IDed buddy'e blackness will NOT affect them adversely one bit...whether they buy into that, whether it does or not, is entirely up to them!"


Hmm...seems kinda familar somehow...can't quite place it...

Anyway, the point I think is pretty obvious. If negative feelings from the marines aren't taken into account for blackness, there's no reason it should for gayness.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
O.K. there is no benefit that we agree on, but there is a harm it's called unit cohesion, I'm sorry but in our society there is a certain stigma that goes along with being a homosexual, and that is a variable that is not needed in a combat situation. As for your claim that sexual orientation is somehow akin to race or religion that is simply fallacious.

No benefit + potential risk = no reason whatsoever should it be needed to be known.
Click to expand...

The same stigma that being black used to carry. Actually, I'd bet that blacks carried a worse stigma. They were let in anyway. And it is not a fallacious argument at all. Quite the contrary, it is rather logical. Which would explain why you are having problems addressing it.
 
Kelzie said:
The same stigma that being black used to carry. Actually, I'd bet that blacks carried a worse stigma. They were let in anyway. And it is not a fallacious argument at all. Quite the contrary, it is rather logical. Which would explain why you are having problems addressing it.
Click to expand...

Just how in the hell is sexual orientation the same thing as race? It's nowhere near the same thing, heterosexual men should not be forced to shower with women nor should they be forced to shower with gay men, so unless you want segregation of homosexuals in the military don't ask don't tell is the best policy.
 
Kelzie said:
Nah. I'm a pure bred military brat. That was enough for me. The fact that you can't rebut anything I said indicates that it doesn't really matter if I've served or not.
Click to expand...

Being a military brat is not the same as actually being in the military.......I was both and I know..........There is a huge difference.........

Several us have rebutted everything you say....you just won't listen and like my friend Deegan I grow weary of trying to convince you..........Sadly You are blinded by your biased liberal viewpoint........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom