• 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!

Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

Why can't the pro homosexual crowd ever argue their positions without degenerating into calling everyone that doesn't agree with them names?

Its also clear many of you are not reading what people are saying you're just quoting them and bashing for applause. Or worse intentionally distorting what they said.

I made comments that pretty much ignored the homosexuality of this entire thing..and what did I get in reply??..that I am now in favor of beating up homosexuals.

Ridiculous about sums it up.
 
Last edited:
Why can't the pro homosexual crowd ever argue their positions without degenerating into calling everyone that doesn't agree with them names?
No need to generalize.

Its also clear many of you are not reading what people are saying you're just quoting them and bashing for applause. Or worse intentionally distorting what they said.

I made comments that pretty much ignored the homosexuality of this entire thing..and what did I get in reply??..that I am now in favor of beating up homosexuals.
Well stop being a "fag basher". ;)
 
Why can't the pro homosexual crowd ever argue their positions without degenerating into calling everyone that doesn't agree with them names?

If a person feels that someone should not serve because he is black, he is called a bigot against blacks.

If a person feels that someone should not serve because they are gay they are called a bigot against gays.

Sorry you cannot accept the facts.

EVERYONE is a bigot against something though.

I am a bigot in the fact I don't want child molesters serving in the military. I am proud to be a bigot in saying child molesters shouldn't be in the military.

The real question is are you proud to be a bigont in the fact you don't want gays serving in the military? Are you willing to say gays are second class citizens that can't serve in the military?

I am willing to say child molesters are second class citizens, are you proud of saying gays are second class citizens?



I made comments that pretty much ignored the homosexuality of this entire thing..and what did I get in reply??..that I am now in favor of beating up homosexuals.
.

No the only claim you have made is that since gays are not accepted into the military it must be right.

That is the ONLY claim you have made and frankly it is false since gays have and still are serving in the military today. They just can't do so publicly.
 
Last edited:
Since gays can't serve openly in the military they must be second class citizens.

Who among DP is willing to admit that gays are second class citizens?

Come on now, you know who you are, to admit that gays shouldn't be afforded the right to openly serve in the military, show now you support that gays are second class citizens. Let's see it now.

Or are you afraid?
 
I do not have to make you "seem" like anything. You dig your own grave, don't point the finger at me.


Let's try further elaborating, because stating that pedophiles cannot help their attraction to children does little to convince me that we should keep gays out of the military. I'm going to need you to connect the dots here and formulate an argument.


Roger that.
Ok I'll connect the dots for you, genius. What I am saying is that just because a person may not be able to help their attraction does not mean they should follow up on it. I believe homosexuality to be immoral.
 
Ok I'll connect the dots for you, genius. What I am saying is that just because a person may not be able to help their attraction does not mean they should follow up on it. I believe homosexuality to be immoral.

The military accepts convicted felons, in some cases. They accept people who have cheated on their spouses. They accept people who lie to their friends. Most people would say that these actions are not moral.

Who made YOU the arbiter of what is moral and what isn't, and are you prepared to argue that anyone who does anything immoral shouldn't be a part of the military?
 
Last edited:
What I am saying is that just because a person may not be able to help their attraction does not mean they should follow up on it.

Some members of the military have raped females, should the opposite sex not be allowed in the military? It's an important question to gauge your views.

I believe homosexuality to be immoral.


Some people view sex outside the marriage to be immoral. Your views on what is moral are irrelevant.
 
Here we are at 59 pages and the positions aren't getting any clearer. To those who still oppose lifting the ban, what is the single best argument you believe you've made here?

:confused:
 
Here we are at 59 pages and the positions aren't getting any clearer. To those who still oppose lifting the ban, what is the single best argument you believe you've made here?

:confused:




Honestly, I think the best argument is themselves. If they can't accept them here. What makes you think they would there? Don't you think, that if. 20% of the military population had a problem with this, that it would cause problems?

Is it right? Is it wrong? That's irrellevant....



as for Me, All I care about is that you are good at hitting the guys sending 7.62 my way...... I am not interested in what you do with your genitalia.....
 
Ok I'll connect the dots for you, genius. What I am saying is that just because a person may not be able to help their attraction does not mean they should follow up on it. I believe homosexuality to be immoral.
If your argument is that gays should not serve in the military because it is, in your opinion, "immoral" to be gay, then it would appear we are done here.

:2wave:
 
Honestly, I think the best argument is themselves. If they can't accept them here. What makes you think they would there? Don't you think, that if. 20% of the military population had a problem with this, that it would cause problems?

I suppose the best way to answer that question would be to test it in real life.

And, if fact, the policy has been tested in real life and we already know the answer. The British don't have a problem with gays in the military. The Australians don't have a problem with gays in the military. The Israelis don't have a problem with gays in the military.

So no... our military won't have a problem either.

:2wave:
 
I suppose the best way to answer that question would be to test it in real life.

And, if fact, the policy has been tested in real life and we already know the answer. The British don't have a problem with gays in the military. The Australians don't have a problem with gays in the military. The Israelis don't have a problem with gays in the military.

So no... our military won't have a problem either.

:2wave:



I tend to agree. Like i said. I was concerned with thier ability to serve, not anyones genitals.


However. Would it be the time to do so in the middle of two wars, or should this be done peace time?


I would for the sake of moral, and safety, wait until we are out of irag and Afghanistan.
 
However. Would it be the time to do so in the middle of two wars, or should this be done peace time?

It's during wartime that the military generally leaves gays to themselves. After all, when you're busy fighting, it seems like a waste of time and resources to discharge soldiers who are doing a good job. Look what happened to gay discharges during the Iraq conflict...

GuideChart.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom