• 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!

Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

CriticalThought said:
I have read the thread. The arguments are summed up exactly as I just spelled them out. You are afraid of gay people somehow hurting the military despite a lack of evidence or reason to support it. An irrational and unsubstantiated fear of gay people is, by definition, homophobia.
Click to expand...

You did not read the thread........
 
CriticalThought said:
Who created the problem whereby hundreds of qualified Arab translators were kicked out of the military simply because they were gay? Who created the problem where thousands of military personal have been kicked out of the military during a time of war simply because they were gay? The problem is the policy.
Click to expand...

Until you can approach this issue with a semblance of objectivity, I will not deign to discuss it with you. You've already demonstrated your bias against any opposing viewpoint.
 
Ethereal said:
Until you can approach this issue with a semblance of objectivity, I will not deign to discuss it with you. You've already demonstrated your bias against any opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

:rofl

What is objective about a ban which has no logical merits whatsoever? You won't discuss it with me because I can easily trounce whatever argument you could make, and you are afraid of being proven wrong.

Congrats, you came to a debate forum to run away from a debate. :roll:
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Who created the problem whereby hundreds of qualified Arab translators were kicked out of the military simply because they were gay? Who created the problem where thousands of military personal have been kicked out of the military during a time of war simply because they were gay? The problem is the policy.
Click to expand...



They did not get kicked out because they were gay..they were kicked out for 1 of 2 reasons........

They either made sexual advancements against other members of the military, or they violated the law that is NADT...

If they did not do that they would still be in the military...............
 
Navy Pride said:
They did not get kicked out because they were gay..they were kicked out for 1 of 2 reasons........

They either made sexual advancements against other members of the military, or they violated the law that is NADT...

If they did not do that they would still be in the military...............
Click to expand...

Most of them got kicked out because they made it known that they were gay. That in itself is considered a violation of the NADT.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSAJdLLwzc"]YouTube- Arabic translator fired from the Navy for being gay[/ame]
 
Navy Pride said:
Yes it is......they broke the law.............
Click to expand...

Yes, they broke the law by being gay and choosing to serve openly in the armed forces. That is why we are changing the law. It is a bad law. Nothing you have said has disproved that it is a bad law and needs to be changed.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yes, they broke the law by being gay and choosing to serve openly in the armed forces. That is why we are changing the law. It is a bad law. Nothing you have said has disproved that it is a bad law and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

Nope not being gay, there are other gay guys in the military serving honorably...they broke the law by telling they were gay.......
 
CriticalThought said:
:rofl

What is objective about a ban which has no logical merits whatsoever? You won't discuss it with me because I can easily trounce whatever argument you could make, and you are afraid of being proven wrong.

Congrats, you came to a debate forum to run away from a debate. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'll happily debate you. What I won't do is bicker with someone who has already made up their mind that I'm wrong and they're right.

Critical Thought, indeed...:roll:
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Yes, they broke the law by being gay and choosing to serve openly in the armed forces. That is why we are changing the law. It is a bad law. Nothing you have said has disproved that it is a bad law and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

The fact that being around gays makes most men's skin crawl has no bearing on the law?.....:confused:
I for one would find solace in not knowing that my 'buddy' wanted to.....Ugh...:shock:
It gives a whole new meaning to "I got your back".........:(
 
Partisan said:
The fact that being around gays makes most men's skin crawl has no bearing on the law?.....:confused:
I for one would find solace in not knowing that my 'buddy' wanted to.....Ugh...:shock:
It gives a whole new meaning to "I got your back".........:(
Click to expand...

This isn't helping. Nobody should be worried about gays trying to hit on them during training or combat. This is just a silly homophobic thing to say and undermines the credibility of valid objections to the repeal of DADT. If you're that worried about gay guys, then maybe you should get some help....
 
Navy Pride said:
Nope not being gay, there are other gay guys in the military serving honorably...they broke the law by telling they were gay.......
Click to expand...

Yes, because men like this who give up a leg for their country should not be allowed to serve openly.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQFvcEU7rvA"]YouTube- Hearing on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Staff Sergeant Alva[/ame]

Because all the men he served alongside who made him the Godfather of their children would not have done so had they known he was gay. Oh wait! They did know!

Yes, what dishonorable man this guy is. He is a law breaking disgrace to this country.
 
Ethereal said:
I'll happily debate you. What I won't do is bicker with someone who has already made up their mind that I'm wrong and they're right.

Critical Thought, indeed...:roll:
Click to expand...

Prove me wrong. If you look at my threads, you will see that I argue both sides of an issue vehemently until I come to a conclusion that the evidence and reason stands firmly on one side. You simply can't present a valid argument, so you are running. Get on with it and scram.
 
The most recent Military Times survey reported 58% of military respondents oppose a DADT policy change, and that was strong enough an issue that 10 percent said they would leave the military while 14% would consider terminating their careers after serving. Although it is true that a modest percentage of mainly younger generation soldiers might be able to serve without issue beside gays, it is also obvious that it would cause frictions with those significant numbers of others that would predictably cause distractions and lack of cohesion. Especially during this war time.

As long as homosexuals keep their sexual preferences secret, there are cannot be problems else it would not be secret. If homosexuals are allowed to be open without restrictions, morale problems will be certain to arise with a significant number of other soldiers. Soldiers often share very close quarters that are certain to make some other soldiers uncomfortable by invading their sexual privacy. If females and males dressed, showered, berthed, roomed together one could predict similar problems would be certain to occur. The solution may be to allow homosexuals in the military but never in situations where they cannot be isolated in the same way heterosexual females and males are currently isolated. Thus dressing/showering/berthing/room sharing etc would need to be separated into four areas.

Additionally Don't Ask Don't Tell protects gays by keeping their sexual orientation secret from other servicemen, some of which otherwise predictably would act negatively against them. Further if gays are allowed to act naturally gay-like, that is certain to provoke some into violence. As I have related earlier, it is not merely a matter of re-educating such tendencies via gay sensitivity training because for many in heterosexual dominant American culture, homosexuality is considered a serious taboo and unacceptable behavior. Something mere political legislation or court directives cannot and will not change. Simply a fact. Christian religions will always be allowed those historic moral opinions that cannot be legislated or court ordered otherwise nor can any argumentation effect change within those groups.
 
Last edited:
Partisan said:
The fact that being around gays makes most men's skin crawl has no bearing on the law?.....:confused:
Click to expand...

Most men could care less one way or the other. Nice projecting your own homophobia though. Or do you actually have any statistics to back up that assertion?
 
70s_guy said:
The most recent Military Times survey reported 58% of military respondents oppose a DADT policy change, and that was strong enough an issue that 10 percent said they would leave the military while 14% would consider terminating their careers after serving. Although it is true that a modest percentage of mainly younger generation soldiers might be able to serve without issue beside gays, it is also obvious that it would cause frictions with those significant numbers of others that would predictably cause distractions and lack of cohesion. Especially during this war time.

As long as homosexuals keep their sexual preferences secret, there are cannot be problems else it would not be secret. If homosexuals are allowed to be open without restrictions, morale problems will be certain to arise with a significant number of other soldiers. Soldiers often share very close quarters that are certain to make some other soldiers uncomfortable by invading their sexual privacy. If females and males dressed, showered, berthed, roomed together one could predict similar problems would be certain to occur. The solution may be to allow homosexuals in the military but never in situations where they cannot be isolated in the same way heterosexual females and males are currently isolated. Thus dressing/showering/berthing/room sharing etc would need to be separated into four areas.

Additionally Don't Ask Don't Tell protects gays by keeping their sexual orientation secret from other servicemen, some of which otherwise predictably would act negatively against them. Further if gays are allowed to act naturally gay-like, that is certain to provoke some into violence. As I have related earlier, it is not merely a matter of re-educating such tendencies via gay sensitivity training because for many in heterosexual dominant American culture, homosexuality is considered a serious taboo and unacceptable behavior. Something mere political legislation or court directives cannot and will not change. Simply a fact. Christian religions will always be allowed those historic moral opinions that cannot be legislated or court ordered otherwise.
Click to expand...

Really.

Nice use of a methodologically suspect poll.

Military Times Poll Flawed | Palm Center

Care to explain why this is not the major issue you are making it out to be in the 24 other nations which allow gays and lesbians to openly serve?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Prove me wrong. If you look at my threads, you will see that I argue both sides of an issue vehemently until I come to a conclusion that the evidence and reason stands firmly on one side. You simply can't present a valid argument, so you are running. Get on with it and scram.
Click to expand...

I've already presented a valid argument. You simply refuse to view it objectively.

I spent four years in the Marine Corps infantry. It's a small gun-club, so I know it very intimately. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that gays serving openly would cause friction and volatility because there is a substantial amount of homophobia in the infantry. You think I'm lying or something, or you just don't care?
 
Ethereal said:
I've already presented a valid argument. You simply refuse to view it objectively.

I spent four years in the Marine Corps infantry. It's a small gun-club, so I know it very intimately. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that gays serving openly would cause friction and volatility because there is a substantial amount of homophobia in the infantry. You think I'm lying or something, or you just don't care?
Click to expand...

You base your entire argument on a personal assumption. That is not objectivity and I find it hilarious that you expect people to consider your subjective opinion to be anything but subjective. But assuming you were right, then its clear that our military has a serious flaw in its professionalism that needs to be amended first with the end of this policy.

Most people are comfortable around gays, and considerably more polls than the one 70's guy presented indicates that much. Not that I think opinion polls should be used to dictate matters of national security.

The fact of the matter is you have no objective argument for keeping this policy, and so you are going to attack other people's objectivity to make up for it.
 
Ethereal said:
I've already presented a valid argument. You simply refuse to view it objectively.

I spent four years in the Marine Corps infantry. It's a small gun-club, so I know it very intimately. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that gays serving openly would cause friction and volatility because there is a substantial amount of homophobia in the infantry. You think I'm lying or something, or you just don't care?
Click to expand...

I think you are correct with a lot you say here. I have no idea what the solution is.

There would be resistance to having openly gay soldiers next to many. That is just the way it is, not right but that is the truth.

Just like there is not suppose to be racism in the military. It has been 40 yrs since I was in but I bet most chow halls the blacks sit on one side and the whites sit on the other.
 
Crosscheck said:
Just like there is not suppose to be racism in the military. It has been 40 yrs since I was in but I bet most chow halls the blacks sit on one side and the whites sit on the other.
Click to expand...


Unlike what I saw in high school, I never saw this in the marines. Cliques formed by billet, or time in service, or rank, or several other factors, I never saw race as a factor... especially not in country- it all turned to squad and fireteam cohesion, as it should. I'm also sure much has changed in 40 years though.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
I've already presented a valid argument. You simply refuse to view it objectively.

I spent four years in the Marine Corps infantry. It's a small gun-club, so I know it very intimately. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that gays serving openly would cause friction and volatility because there is a substantial amount of homophobia in the infantry. You think I'm lying or something, or you just don't care?
Click to expand...

You made that point earlier when you and I were discussing this. And again I'd like to say I appreciate you just coming right out and saying it. "Homophobia" There it is. The 500 Pound gorilla of DADT.

I strongly dislike the fact that homophobia is an issue that is keeping DADT as an active policy in our military, but at least I can see your point. And at least it's an honest one.
 
CriticalThought said:
You base your entire argument on a personal assumption.
Click to expand...

No, I base my entire argument on four years of firsthand experience in the Marine Corps infantry. An assumption would imply that I was speaking from ignorance. Are you saying I'm ignorant of the Marine infantry?

That is not objectivity and I find it hilarious that you expect people to consider your subjective opinion to be anything but subjective.
Click to expand...

Stop using words you do not understand. I'm not offering a "subjective opinion" - I'm telling you what I experienced firsthand. So, unless you want to call me a liar, you really haven't a leg to stand on.

But assuming you were right, then its clear that our military has a serious flaw in its professionalism that needs to be amended first with the end of this policy.
Click to expand...

See. I knew it. You don't care about military efficiency or this country's security. You're just obsessed with an agenda - consequences be damned.

Most people are comfortable around gays...
Click to expand...

Grunts aren't "most people". In fact, a lot of them are pretty nuts.

...and considerably more polls than the one 70's guy presented indicates that much. Not that I think opinion polls should be used to dictate matters of national security.
Click to expand...

You don't give a **** about national security. You're just a partisan slut.

The fact of the matter is you have no objective argument for keeping this policy, and so you are going to attack other people's objectivity to make up for it.
Click to expand...

So, I wasn't in the Marine Corps infantry for four years and am not in a position to speak intelligently about its composition? Or is it that you just don't like it when someone presents facts that undermine your precious agenda?
 
I simply don't see how homophobia is any greater a justification for keeping gays out of the military than sexism was for keeping women out or racism was for keeping African Americans out. If it has presented any major problem to the 24 other countries that had allowed gays to openly serve, then I might be more concerned, but it seems to me that this is simply a bunch of people saying to let their prejudices and biases dictate the terms of national security and uniform conduct.
 
Winnb said:
You made that point earlier when you and I were discussing this. And again I'd like to say I appreciate you just coming right out and saying it. "Homophobia" There it is. The 500 Pound gorilla of DADT.

I strongly dislike the fact that homophobia is an issue that is keeping DADT as an active policy in our military, but at least I can see your point. And at least it's an honest one.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand. I have no valid points, and my entire argument is nothing more than a "subjective opinion". You see, I had my eyes closed and my ears plugged the entire time I was in the military. I don't possess the expertise and knowledge that "Critical" Thought does...
 
Ethereal said:
No, I base my entire argument on four years of firsthand experience in the Marine Corps infantry. An assumption would imply that I was speaking from ignorance. Are you saying I'm ignorant of the Marine infantry?
Click to expand...

I presented a video of a guy with over a decade of experience disagreeing with you. Frankly, the problem with personal experience, is it can differ from person to person. That is why personal experience is not considered objective.

Stop using words you do not understand. I'm not offering a "subjective opinion" - I'm telling you what I experienced firsthand. So, unless you want to call me a liar, you really haven't a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

So what makes your experience so much more valid that the guy who I presented in that video?

See. I knew it. You don't care about military efficiency or this country's security. You're just obsessed with an agenda - consequences be damned.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, I don't think prejudice and bias should dictate the terms of national security.

Grunts aren't "most people". In fact, a lot of them are pretty nuts.
Click to expand...

Good to know.

So, I wasn't in the Marine Corps infantry for four years and am not in a position to speak intelligently about its composition? Or is it that you just don't like it when someone presents facts that undermine your precious agenda?
Click to expand...

The fact that you have to use the word "agenda" when referring to a gay issue, kinda dispels any illusion that you are anything but partisan on this issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom