• 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.

Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

Should gays be allowed to serve openly gay in the military?

  • yes

    Votes: 40 78.4%
  • no

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • Total voters
    51
You are the one forever claiming that your frequent epithet "liberal" is not
intended as an insult. Now that you are explicitly qulifying it with "whacked out"
it must be obvious to everyone that you have always meant it as an insult.
Personally, I do not care what you call me; I would just prefer you to be honest
about your intentions.


You have Liberal and you have whacked out Liberals...I think most of the people in DP are just Liberals with a few exceptions and they know who theyr are.....;)
 
You have Liberal and you have whacked out Liberals...I think most of the people in DP are just Liberals with a few exceptions and they know who theyr are.....;)

I have to agree with the liberal vs whacked out liberal comment. Of course, you must concede, in all fairness, that there are some whacked out conservatives too. Aquapub comes to mind right off...
 
I have to agree with the liberal vs whacked out liberal comment. Of course, you must concede, in all fairness, that there are some whacked out conservatives too. Aquapub comes to mind right off...

Without agreeing about Aquapub I agree with your premise on Conservatives although they seem to be vastly outnumbered by the left wing whackos.....
 
If people lose the desire to serve and protect our great nation because they have to work with a few (and yes, I am acknowledging that they are few in number) gay people, than I don't want them protecting my freedoms in the first place. If someone who was a career soldier/sailor decided not to re-enlist or re-commission or whatever due to the fact that gays were serving, than that speaks highly of their patriotism and dedication to duty (hint: they didn't have any).



Was there a point to this question? Would it even make a difference if I answered it? (which Im not).
well thankfully people in the position of authority are able to make the practical decision, rather than harm our national defense for PC ideals
 
well thankfully people in the position of authority are able to make the practical decision, rather than harm our national defense for PC ideals

Yes, the practical decision that encourages immaturity and bigotry, for the sake of keeping unpatriotic children in the military.
 
Without agreeing about Aquapub I agree with your premise on Conservatives although they seem to be vastly outnumbered by the left wing whackos.....

Yeah but I will say this: when talking about liberal whackos, they are most dangerous when you get them together in a group. Conservative whackos are dangerous as both solitary agents and in a mob.
 
Yes, the practical decision that encourages immaturity and bigotry, for the sake of keeping unpatriotic children in the military.


Can you come up with come new talking points please? Those are getting stale and old...thanks
 
well thankfully people in the position of authority are able to make the practical decision, rather than harm our national defense for PC ideals

You're right. I sincerely hope that the people in the positions of authority listen to their own JCOS who oversaw the implementation of DADT and will agree that it's a bad policy.
 
I said gays are an abomination of nature, birth defected and weak... Weak is probably not a correct catagory... so choose birth defect or abomination... Earlier Captain Courtesy advised he would provide information to resolve this assumption that I could not in my hasty investigation using the encyclopedia, as of yet I can find no basis as to why gays, or gay men have a preference for men instead of women. I conclude that something went wrong after conception prior to birth but have no proof... I can find nothing to prove otherwise... the studies indicated science thought it to be mental illness until the 1970's... if you have some information that clears up when a person becomes a homosexual please share it with me. Many homosexuals have argued it is a natural occurance in nature referring to animals... this caused me to believe that homosexuals thought they were born that way, different than the intent of nature for procreation. I grew up on a farm and watched nature closely... I've seen calves born with two heads, seen turtles with two heads and other non intentions of nature... we called this an abomination of nature or birth defect. I also saw normal bulls fight over the cows for dominance to later see them in a market sales pin performing homosexual acts on each other as happens in prisons with humans. I don't know the cause of the abnormality, do you?

"Abomination" is rather Biblical. "Defect"? Eh, I'm perfectly functional physically & mentally and if I really wanted to I could have a child. Actually being gay when the world population is exploding and getting up to 7 billion, well, we could use more people who would really have to consider whether or not they want to bring a child into this world.

You seem like a pretty nice normal person and if I met you and we shared similar likes or interests we would probablly share a good conversation with no problem. You seem normal as you have stated, but if we visited you and you kissed your same sex lover or showed affection in any way I would be repulsed because I would immediately think I don't know the real you or understand how you could do something so abnormal. You ask "As for what is normal, ask everyone what is normal and everyone will find that everyone else is abnormal in some manner. If you knew me, you'd have no problem describing me as normal except for the gay thing." and I'll ask you in return how many TV shows or movies represent what you consider to be "your" normal? I used to post on a site where there were no rules, whatpissesyouoff, and was part of a dialog with a gay man who stated he was repulsed by the very thought of sleeping with a woman as I was to him with a man. I was busy asking why a minority desiring equal rights would beat up on the Boy Scouts and others but I ended the conversation out of disgust when one of the posters posted an older gay man bent over spreading his butt wide enough to insert a soft ball. Sorry, I find that when a human being is that different they are defected at birth or an abomination of nature. I entered the discussion just frustrated about gays bothering straits about Boy Scouts, army recruiting and left with a disgust for the acts gays do to each other.

I'm just not one for public displays of affection. We could probably have a relatively civil conversation in real life, I agree. I don't understand how a PDoA would would make you not know the real me, but whatever. So you had a bad experience on the internet with some gays. It is the internet afterall, and plenty of people are just offensive. You brought up fisting earlier, and that is something I find disgusting as you do. Now, there are a number of straight people that engage in weird sexual acts that are harmful, but I wouldn't write off all straight people as sickos, that just doesn't follow. I do agree with the ruling against the Boy Scouts as I mentioned earlier and why. They could've played by the rules every other private organization plays by, but they wanted special treatment. Gee, doesn't that sound ironically familiar? Now if they want to kick out gays and atheists while not accepting federal funding, that's just fine, I don't care. I just wouldn't personally support them. The Boy Scouts has turned into a quasi-creepy Christian organization. What the hell does a belief in god/gods or ones sexual orientation have to do with tying knots and starting a fire from scratch? I'd be more pissed at what the fundamentalist Christians have done to the organization, but of course you came into the conversation frustrated and already had your mind made up. Next time try going in with a level head and seeing if the other side has some valid points.

It is hard to argue that point.

If you disagree, feel free to explain.

We are talking on two different levels here... under the constitution I think gay people might be able to have same sex unions, kiss and make out in public and serve in the military as any other citizen without restrictions based on the judge looking at the issues. But I was speaking of gays being accepted by the people... The black people in the south now have the right to enter any resturant and order a meal but they don't have the ability or acceptance to assure someone hasn't spit in their meal. Some things are in your control and others are in the control of the rights you desire.

What? How can you possibly describe yourself as "very conservative"? I mean in the context of what is associated with conservatism today. What is it exactly that you are conserving, and very much so? I don't see the need for widespread acceptance. Some parts of this nation are far too backwards and I'll be sure to stay out and let them stagnate with their racism, gay-baiting, Jew-hating, whatever. You can only present people in the opposition with information and chances are they were comforable believing what they did and don't want to change regardless of reality. As a rule, all big cities in this country are socially liberal more or less. Same goes for college towns in rural areas, which I'd argue are pretty much the only interesting small towns to visit. So, with those as my options I don't see the point of acceptance, and you're always going to have people who don't accept you anyway.

The facts are the Boy Scouts were just fine for generations before the gay backed ACLU bothered them... the military still finds the judgment in contempt and fully supports the Boy Scouts outside to the US. I fail to understand how a minority desiring something would attack something they cherish... It made me your enemy, I had an open mind until the gays attacked the Boy Scouts and the military recruiters.

Hopefully the aforementioned info puts things into perspective. It sounds like you just bought the nonsense spewed on talk radio. Not to mention I'm certain there are gays who agree with you on the Boy Scouts. We're not one singular entity and that goes for just about all groups of people. I'd make an exemption for the vast majority of those who follow specific, rigid dogmas.

Normal is what normal is and one day normal will be for gay men to have unions, show affections in public and serve openly in the military. I could, if I so desire purchase pay for view lesbians making love but I cannot purchase gay males making love because in the year 2006 it is not normal.

Well, neither is the norm, but for a gay person to be gay is normal for that individual. Now two straight guys making out? That's abnormal.

I've explained my position.

Yes, but I'm not finding that it makes sense. If you are fine with holding an irrational position based on a gut reaction and tradition, then so be it.

Perhaps less gay pride parades and locking up religious people would help... don't use sex and gay together ever.

There's only one a year, and it's one of the best events of the year. Lots of straight people like the spectacle and that's what it's meant to be. It could also have something to do with the fact that we have an abnormal law saying it's legal for women to be topless in public. And I'm sure you don't object to gay hot chicks having sex, so never say never, or should that be "ever". I don't think religious people need to be locked up (I'm sure that was an exaggeration), but I do think our education system neds to be revamped and teach students HOW to think. Philosphy & logic would go a long way if you ask me.
 
You're right. I sincerely hope that the people in the positions of authority listen to their own JCOS who oversaw the implementation of DADT and will agree that it's a bad policy.

I have a flash for you.....He is not the JCOS and has not been for years...........
 
I have a flash for you.....He is not the JCOS and has not been for years...........

Really Navy? You're clearly telling me something I don't know here. Furthermore, the fact that he was "only" the JCOS for 4 years means that he doesn't know what he's talking about, right?
 
Anecdotal, hypothetical, and therfore, irrelevant to the concept of 'evidence'. Your example is evidence of a rude person, regardless of sexual orientation, who has no social skills. The couples' reactions to him would be based on that...not his sexual orientation.

Since your 'evidence' is not, this is irrelevant.

Same as I posted above.
All right can we agree that a gay child was not the objective of parents family building plan?

More logical fallacies. You have yet to prove that the reason this has not occurred is because of their inability. This opening shows that there is no connection in your position.
My point was there are separate games for women's sports events because the norm is a basic difference of physical ability. In movies women kick mens butts all the time but if you were dispatcher at the police station and you had three patrols; two knuckle drager former football greats and on female patrol who would you dispatch to the fight?

Read my previous post, again, for why your premise, here is a Non Sequitur logical fallacy. You have yet to show any evidence contrary to that.
I did but missed something... my point was for the gay family member to meet individually with different family members to see if they would support the military issue maybe over a pizza at Pizza Hut and if they agree then ask if they would sign letters to that effect that you would mail to state and federal government officials, the family members would never have to say one word in public one way or the other on the issue... Repeat this by each gay person doing the same with all family members and you have enough support, if in fact they agree to scare the hell out of a politician.

On NYC's thread I came to a conclusion that legislation for openly serving gays could work... It could work if gays simply remain silent about sexuality after being granted the status of being free to serve openly gay. I concluded it this way... gays now serve without problem and if they remain in a status that allows acceptance there would be no problem. When I grew up attending school I cannot remember one gay student, likewise the same in the Army with the exception of those busted in the act. Thinking back on school days of kids that were sissies in elementary school, perhaps gay were pretty smart to not be identified in high school... I remember guys that would say I'm studing for a scolarship or I want to be a doctor and I have to make the best grades because my mom has this or that life ending illness and I accepted the reasons for not chasing girls or whatever the invite was because to me they were simply boring.

Back to the mistakes, well let's say those un planned children with differing sexual orientations with an adult agenda... Here I see the possibility for an all out problem because I see gay pride parades and think as soon as congress would pass the action these military gays would be doing a victory lap in BDU's with the azz cheeks cut out with no underwear wearing rainbow armbands or headbands... As pointed out on the other thread that logically would not happen... The reason I thought it would happen is because of the gay pride parades and haveing lived through the civil rights era where all black soldiers wore red-black-green bracelets, had dapping sessions entering army busses that took so long that the bus couldn't keep schedule and at one point a group of blacks in Korea held a Support Command CG hostage with demands ... my thoughts were if gays acted as they do in Philly or CA in the gay pride events then they would do the same in the army... If that occured strait soldiers would flee that would not desire to be associated with such "pride" of un planned adulthood with differing sexual orientations with an adult agenda to flaunt it... I have two kids that will be of draft age very soon and without assurance of no parades I wouldn't sign the letter for my gay cousin.
 
I have two kids that will be of draft age very soon and without assurance of no parades I wouldn't sign the letter for my gay cousin.

I also have two kids who will be of draft age very soon, and whether or not military gays will soon be "doing victory lap in BDUs with the arse cheeks cut out with no underwear wearing rainbow armbands or headbands" is the very least of my concerns, and will concern me even less if a draft actually comes to pass, in which case I will be too busy deciding how best to save my children: shoot them in the feet, or drug them into unconsciousness and run away with them to Tijuana.
 
apples and oranges, but nice try
you and your pupils
sexuality is nothing like race
and as i recall minorities were segregated in the military, and eventually were fully integrated, and accepted by most

and just because you have ' a more enlightened position' does not mean you force it down the throats of those who have volunteered to protect your right to believe what ever you want
homos have made many advances in society
but marriage, openly serving, etc..
they want too much too fast
people change on a dime
civilizations, cultures, countries take time

did you seriously say homos?:shock:
I guess we know you're bigotted
 
All right can we agree that a gay child was not the objective of parents family building plan?

I would agree that sexual orientation is not a consideration when couples discuss objectives/hopes for their soon-to-be-born children. I would think that health is probably the only real consideration.

My point was there are separate games for women's sports events because the norm is a basic difference of physical ability. In movies women kick mens butts all the time but if you were dispatcher at the police station and you had three patrols; two knuckle drager former football greats and on female patrol who would you dispatch to the fight?

If you are discussing physical prowess, then I would cautiously agree with you, as, point-to-point, a woman's natural physical strength is less than a man's. However, I read your comments to mean leadership. In this sense, I do not agree. Women can be as effective leaders as men.

I did but missed something... my point was for the gay family member to meet individually with different family members to see if they would support the military issue maybe over a pizza at Pizza Hut and if they agree then ask if they would sign letters to that effect that you would mail to state and federal government officials, the family members would never have to say one word in public one way or the other on the issue... Repeat this by each gay person doing the same with all family members and you have enough support, if in fact they agree to scare the hell out of a politician.

I have already explained some of the potential confounds to your hypothetical scenerio. Reread the bottom of Post #544.

On NYC's thread I came to a conclusion that legislation for openly serving gays could work... It could work if gays simply remain silent about sexuality after being granted the status of being free to serve openly gay. I concluded it this way... gays now serve without problem and if they remain in a status that allows acceptance there would be no problem. When I grew up attending school I cannot remember one gay student, likewise the same in the Army with the exception of those busted in the act. Thinking back on school days of kids that were sissies in elementary school, perhaps gay were pretty smart to not be identified in high school... I remember guys that would say I'm studing for a scolarship or I want to be a doctor and I have to make the best grades because my mom has this or that life ending illness and I accepted the reasons for not chasing girls or whatever the invite was because to me they were simply boring.

Many gays have chosen in the past and choose in the present to not identify their sexual orientation because of the real fear of persecution and physical attacks.

Back to the mistakes, well let's say those un planned children with differing sexual orientations with an adult agenda... Here I see the possibility for an all out problem because I see gay pride parades and think as soon as congress would pass the action these military gays would be doing a victory lap in BDU's with the azz cheeks cut out with no underwear wearing rainbow armbands or headbands... As pointed out on the other thread that logically would not happen... The reason I thought it would happen is because of the gay pride parades and haveing lived through the civil rights era where all black soldiers wore red-black-green bracelets, had dapping sessions entering army busses that took so long that the bus couldn't keep schedule and at one point a group of blacks in Korea held a Support Command CG hostage with demands ... my thoughts were if gays acted as they do in Philly or CA in the gay pride events then they would do the same in the army... If that occured strait soldiers would flee that would not desire to be associated with such "pride" of un planned adulthood with differing sexual orientations with an adult agenda to flaunt it... I have two kids that will be of draft age very soon and without assurance of no parades I wouldn't sign the letter for my gay cousin.

I have no idea what kind of gay people you have been dealing with, but those that you describe, above, are extremists. Extremists of any group do not represent that group as a whole and, in general, present that group in an exclusionary, degrading, bigotted, stereotypical, and misrepresentative way. I make a policy to expose extremists whenever possible as they indirectly attack the very group they claim to represent.
 
Well now. Can we say that the side supporting DADT won the debate? The other side seems to have run out of arguments and are now spending their time directing personal attacks at Navy. That sure looks like a white flag to me.

That is always what the left side does. When they run out of ideas, they resort to personal attacks.
 
I will be too busy deciding how best to save my children: shoot them in the feet, or drug them into unconsciousness and run away with them to Tijuana.

I wouldnt run, but if that's what you decide to do...... dont go down to TJ. It wouldnt be a very nice place to live (to say the least).
 
That is always what the left side does. When they run out of ideas, they resort to personal attacks.

Naw, it isn't just the Left. There are also some on the Right who haven't quite mastered the art of debate that doesn't include overt or backhanded ad hominem references. But I agree there are some who seem incapable of refuting a statement or arguing their own point of view without making it personal. And when that becomes blatant, I think its because they don't have anything else to contribute to the topic if they ever did. :)
 
"Abomination" is rather Biblical. "Defect"? Eh, I'm perfectly functional physically & mentally and if I really wanted to I could have a child. Actually being gay when the world population is exploding and getting up to 7 billion, well, we could use more people who would really have to consider whether or not they want to bring a child into this world.
This is an idiots and maniacs thing... I don't consider gays an abomination or birth defect I simply dislike the alter universe encroaching on my universe... think of it as if the universes were reversed. In private your universe and my universe live in total harmony. I don't care what gay people do, if they have civil unions and serve openly in the military if they simply retain their universe out of the public eye of my universe. The idiots and maniacs theory is an analogy of driving in comparison to the situation... the guy driving too slowly is an idiot and the guy blowing the horn behind you is a maniac. I hope you drive so you understand this analogy but here on the open road people are rude as hell cutting you off and cutting in and out of traffic with only one or two inches to spare... we have way too many cars on the island... the young folks are always late and the older folks are never in a hurry... once off the main highway and in a subdivision where you may be a butt hole and be known to a neighbor everyone reigns in the stupidity in driving habits because then it is personal. The same applies to cities and rural areas in America I think, gays in cities are so normal that it becomes an understood like on the highway but gays in the rural have not desensitized the rural in like manner thus those not living in urban areas find the gay lifestyle more of a shock than those living in the city.

I'm just not one for public displays of affection. We could probably have a relatively civil conversation in real life, I agree. I don't understand how a PDoA would would make you not know the real me, but whatever. So you had a bad experience on the internet with some gays. It is the internet afterall, and plenty of people are just offensive. You brought up fisting earlier, and that is something I find disgusting as you do. Now, there are a number of straight people that engage in weird sexual acts that are harmful, but I wouldn't write off all straight people as sickos, that just doesn't follow. I do agree with the ruling against the Boy Scouts as I mentioned earlier and why. They could've played by the rules every other private organization plays by, but they wanted special treatment. Gee, doesn't that sound ironically familiar? Now if they want to kick out gays and atheists while not accepting federal funding, that's just fine, I don't care. I just wouldn't personally support them. The Boy Scouts has turned into a quasi-creepy Christian organization. What the hell does a belief in god/gods or ones sexual orientation have to do with tying knots and starting a fire from scratch? I'd be more pissed at what the fundamentalist Christians have done to the organization, but of course you came into the conversation frustrated and already had your mind made up. Next time try going in with a level head and seeing if the other side has some valid points.
I like the Boy Scouts and was one for about six weeks but I started feeling sorry for my dad who had to drive me to the meetings and wait there the whole time because the drive was too long for him to drop me and come back later... I'll never forgive the gays for screwing over the Boy Scouts... I find it vile and mean what they did. Bothering kids to get even with differences religious values is a hit below the belt to me. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home and I rejected the beliefs but respect my mother's right to feel strongly about her religious values. I take swipes at religious fundamentalist as a swipe at my mother. She would never do anything meaner than pray for you.

If you disagree, feel free to explain.
I'm sorry I forgot what this was about, perhaps you could bring it up in your reply again.

What? How can you possibly describe yourself as "very conservative"? I mean in the context of what is associated with conservatism today. What is it exactly that you are conserving, and very much so? I don't see the need for widespread acceptance. Some parts of this nation are far too backwards and I'll be sure to stay out and let them stagnate with their racism, gay-baiting, Jew-hating, whatever. You can only present people in the opposition with information and chances are they were comfortable believing what they did and don't want to change regardless of reality. As a rule, all big cities in this country are socially liberal more or less. Same goes for college towns in rural areas, which I'd argue are pretty much the only interesting small towns to visit. So, with those as my options I don't see the point of acceptance, and you're always going to have people who don't accept you anyway.
I would refer you back to the idiots and maniacs theory. There lies the problem a large portion of service members are not from urban areas.

Hopefully the aforementioned info puts things into perspective. It sounds like you just bought the nonsense spewed on talk radio. Not to mention I'm certain there are gays who agree with you on the Boy Scouts. We're not one singular entity and that goes for just about all groups of people. I'd make an exemption for the vast majority of those who follow specific, rigid dogmas.
Like I said before if we could keep the universes from colliding I don't think there would be much of a problem. Stop bothering and flaunting to be the focus of the agenda and see progress.

Well, neither is the norm, but for a gay person to be gay is normal for that individual. Now two straight guys making out? That's abnormal.
Gay men may be viewed very differently by strait men and women I would think.

Yes, but I'm not finding that it makes sense. If you are fine with holding an irrational position based on a gut reaction and tradition, then so be it.
I'm prone to change I guess, life moves too fast for me I don't even like to use cell phones and when I have to I usually get angry for the difference...

There's only one a year, and it's one of the best events of the year. Lots of straight people like the spectacle and that's what it's meant to be. It could also have something to do with the fact that we have an abnormal law saying it's legal for women to be topless in public. And I'm sure you don't object to gay hot chicks having sex, so never say never, or should that be "ever". I don't think religious people need to be locked up (I'm sure that was an exaggeration), but I do think our education system neds to be revamped and teach students HOW to think. Philosphy & logic would go a long way if you ask me.
I was talking about the "Philly five" that were arrested at the gay pride event in Philly. It was like locking up my mom. If you want a "public" event then respect the rights of the public including freedom of speech and religious expression. Church people come to my house at least weekly looking to save my soul, I go out to the gate and smile and tell them I'm cooking take their literature go in the house and throw it in the trash or leave it for my wife to read, they smile, feel good and leave.
 
Do you understand the irony of your statement?

If the left considers what I said a personal attack, then perhaps they should change their debating tactics (because that's what happens).
 
If the left considers what I said a personal attack, then perhaps they should change their debating tactics (because that's what happens).

Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Perhaps your missing the point shuamort. Let me make it perfectly clear for you. I was not making a personal attack. I was stating a fact about common occurances I've encountered while debating people on the left. Therefore, it is not a personal attack and there is no irony in it.

If that isnt crystal, I dont know what else I can do to illustrate my point.
 
Naw, it isn't just the Left. There are also some on the Right who haven't quite mastered the art of debate that doesn't include overt or backhanded ad hominem references. But I agree there are some who seem incapable of refuting a statement or arguing their own point of view without making it personal. And when that becomes blatant, I think its because they don't have anything else to contribute to the topic if they ever did. :)

Agree'd. :2wave:
 
Perhaps your missing the point shuamort. Let me make it perfectly clear for you. I was not making a personal attack. I was stating a fact about common occurances I've encountered while debating people on the left. Therefore, it is not a personal attack and there is no irony in it.

If that isnt crystal, I dont know what else I can do to illustrate my point.
Making blanket ad hominem attacks while decrying others for making ad hominem attacks...
Let me make this as clear as latin:

Ad hominem tu quoque.
 
Back
Top Bottom