• 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!

Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

bicycleman said:
You evidentally didn't read the whole post. You can't cherry pick. God made the sex act pleasant, or man and woman wouldn't be doing it, but the whole thing was for children. Of course, God knew men and women would have sex for fun, that's why he made it so good and why he made them attractive to each other, but with the knowledge that sex creates life. Nowhere has a penis in an anus created a child. It's just not normal.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then God also knew that men and men would have sex for fun and women and women would have sex for fun adn that's why he made it so good and why he made them attractive to each other.

Has a penis and a mouth ever created a child? How about a penis and a hand? You must consider oral sex and masturbation abnormal, is that correct?
I guess birth control/contraceptives are abnormal as well.
 
disneydude said:
Do you believe that discrimination is moral?
Click to expand...

No, but is it discrimination to not allow men into a women's bathroom based on their gender?
 
disneydude said:
I agree...but then so would your post since your post was based on those issues.

I'm glad that you could see that.
Click to expand...

That would definitely be a good discussion to undertake. If you and I were discussing it, that's one thing, but everybody else is going to get into the fray, and there would be all kinds of side arguments going on that would derail this thread.
 
digsbe said:
No, but is it discrimination to not allow men into a women's bathroom based on their gender?
Click to expand...

That's not the issue here, no matter how hard you attempt to pidgeon hole it into that. The issue is about deny service in the military based on sexual orientation, not men using women's bathrooms :doh

Many people thought that segregation and slavery were "moral"....they were wrong just as it is wrong to discriminate in this case.
 
disneydude said:
That's not the issue here, no matter how hard you attempt to pidgeon hole it into that. The issue is about deny service in the military based on sexual orientation, not men using women's bathrooms :doh

Many people thought that segregation and slavery were "moral"....they were wrong just as it is wrong to discriminate in this case.
Click to expand...

It may not be the direct issue, but it's the same exact principal. The fact is allowing homosexuals to live and bunk with their genders is inappropriate and damaging to the military. But my question still stands, is it discrimination to not allow a man in a women's bathroom simply because his gender is male?
 
bicycleman said:
Homosexuals were banned from the military before 1982. Ronald Reagan didn't address the matter. It was military policy. Why should he?
Click to expand...

So then you admit DADT really had nothing to do with Clinton? Good.

I know. It's all a vast right-winged conspiracy, but look at the following:

Skelton opposes repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' - TheHill.com

How do you explain a Democrat being against this policy, or for that matter coming up with the idea in the first place?
Click to expand...

Why don't you try doing research on your examples of "Democrats" before you go talking about what is "right wing" and "left wing".

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Skelton]Ike Skelton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Skelton is generally described as a moderate-to-conservative Democrat. He sides with social conservatives on hot-button social issues such as abortion, crime, gun control, and gay rights, but on the economic front his record is more varied as he is strongly supportive of labor.[4] Skelton has a mixed record on environmental issues with his most recent rating from the League of Conservation Voters at 53 percent. He was one of the few Congressional Democrats to vote in favor of CAFTA and mostly supports free trade deals. Skelton voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Before the election, Skelton told Newsweek's George Will that his main priority as chair of the Armed Services Committee was "oversight, oversight, oversight!" While he voted for the War in Iraq, he has expressed serious misgivings about troop readiness. He favors reducing the number of troops in Iraq and even supports redeploying a brigade from Iraq to Kuwait. Will suggested that under Skelton, the Armed Services Committee would resemble a U.S. Senate committee created to examine defense spending during World War II. This committee was chaired by Skelton's hero, Harry S. Truman.[5]
Click to expand...

I think just looking him up on Wiki would have explained to you why a "Conservative Democrat" as opposed to a "Liberal Democrat" would vote for such a law. Being a Democrat doesn't make you "left wing" on social issues.
 
disneydude said:
Do you believe that discrimination is moral?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I can't think of any reason why the Marines don't put people like Helen Keller on the front lines.

Not hiring deaf-mutes is as blatant a case of discrimination as any I've ever seen.
 
disneydude said:
That's not the issue here, no matter how hard you attempt to pidgeon hole it into that.
Click to expand...

That is the issue here.

People who are not men want access to, among other things, the bunk rooms, the showers, and the toilet facilities assigned to men in the military.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Absolutely.
Click to expand...
The key here, I think, is that not all discrimination is wrong and immoral.

The decision as to which discriminatory practices are wrong and/or immoral is one of opinion.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Absolutely.

I can't think of any reason why the Marines don't put people like Helen Keller on the front lines.

Not hiring deaf-mutes is as blatant a case of discrimination as any I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

You have now compared homosexuality to physical disabilities. You prove every day you are not a real person. By the way, do you know if Malcolm X was a mute too?
 
The Mark said:
The key here, I think, is that not all discrimination is wrong and immoral.

The decision as to which discriminatory practices are wrong and/or immoral is one of opinion.
Click to expand...

"Discrimination" is a word that means "make a choice".

That's it.

And, since no one has a right to serve in the US military, as the exclusion of physically disabled and psychologically ill people shows, and since (they're gonna ban again me for this) since homosexuality is a form of mental illness, be it genetically or environmentally derived, then excluding yet another class of mentally ill applicants is not in itself some immoral form of discrimination, but perfectly reasonable.

The Left should constrain it's failed social engineering experiments to their own clubs, and leave the safety of the nation to the professionals.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Discrimination" is a word that means "make a choice".

That's it.

And, since no one has a right to serve in the US military, as the exclusion of physically disabled and psychologically ill people shows, and since (they're gonna ban again me for this) since homosexuality is a form of mental illness, be it genetically or environmentally derived, then excluding yet another class of mentally ill applicants is not in itself some immoral form of discrimination, but perfectly reasonable.

The Left should constrain it's failed social engineering experiments to their own clubs, and leave the safety of the nation to the professionals.
Click to expand...

I bet you can't prove this.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Discrimination" is a word that means "make a choice".

That's it.
Click to expand...
True.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And, since no one has a right to serve in the US military, as the exclusion of physically disabled and psychologically ill people shows, and since (they're gonna ban again me for this) since homosexuality is a form of mental illness, be it genetically or environmentally derived, then excluding yet another class of mentally ill applicants is not in itself some immoral form of discrimination, but perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
Change that to "...since homosexuality is a different mental state from heterosexuality, and some people are of the opinion that it is a mental illness."
I don't necessarily agree. And many other people with varying forms of mental illness serve, depending on how you define mental illness.
I know this guy who would probably define the mental state of anyone volunteering for the Marines as "ill".
 
Hatuey said:
You have now compared homosexuality to physical disabilities. You prove every day you are not a real person. By the way, do you know if Malcolm X was a mute too?
Click to expand...

Who's Malcolm the Tenth?

He got a last name so's we can google him?
 
The Mark said:
True.

Change that to "...since homosexuality is a different mental state from heterosexuality, and some people are of the opinion that it is a mental illness."
I don't necessarily agree. And many other people with varying forms of mental illness serve, depending on how you define mental illness.
I know this guy who would probably define the mental state of anyone volunteering for the Marines as "ill".
Click to expand...

No, I see no need to alter my correct opinions to meet your expectations.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Discrimination" is a word that means "make a choice".

That's it.

And, since no one has a right to serve in the US military, as the exclusion of physically disabled and psychologically ill people shows, and since (they're gonna ban again me for this) since homosexuality is a form of mental illness, be it genetically or environmentally derived, then excluding yet another class of mentally ill applicants is not in itself some immoral form of discrimination, but perfectly reasonable.

The Left should constrain it's failed social engineering experiments to their own clubs, and leave the safety of the nation to the professionals.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, homosexuality did not interfere with the ability to comprehend orders, nor does it interfere with ones ability to comprehend reality, nor differentiate between the imaginary and objective world, nor does homosexuality prevent one from understanding complex commands, arithmetic or social cues. Thus homosexuality does not fall within mental illness as defined by science.

Secondly even if you were to argue that it is a mental illness, because homosexuality does not actually effect soldiering ability in the way that mental retardation, schizophrenia, bi-polar, hyper-mani or depression might effect the function of a soldier, there is no good reason to discriminate on those grounds, as doing so is not actually minimizing harm.
 
digsbe said:
It may not be the direct issue, but it's the same exact principal. The fact is allowing homosexuals to live and bunk with their genders is inappropriate and damaging to the military. But my question still stands, is it discrimination to not allow a man in a women's bathroom simply because his gender is male?
Click to expand...

It isn't even close to the same exact principal. Homosexuals ALREADY live and bunk with the "genders" and it isn't inappropriate or damaging to the military.
The only issue is whether they are honest about it or have to lie.
Under your rationale....telling the truth would be immoral and lying would be moral. Can't you see how demented that is?
 
disneydude said:
It isn't even close to the same exact principal. Homosexuals ALREADY live and bunk with the "genders" and it isn't inappropriate or damaging to the military.
The only issue is whether they are honest about it or have to lie.
Under your rationale....telling the truth would be immoral and lying would be moral. Can't you see how demented that is?
Click to expand...

So joining the military knowing one is homosexual isn't immoral....knowing as early as boot camp's first night that being honest about who you are...doesn't sit on the shoulder's of the recruit? Because he or she disagrees with DADT, any recruit realizes upon signing(it is a volunteer army) he or she won't be afforded openness....it's part of the agreement.

How demented would it be to all of the sudden begin pretending you're harmed by your inability to be yourself. You don't like the rules, resign. don't like it that you cannot put a picture up of your loved one...retire. Serve your years out following the rules.
 
disneydude said:
It isn't even close to the same exact principal. Homosexuals ALREADY live and bunk with the "genders" and it isn't inappropriate or damaging to the military.
The only issue is whether they are honest about it or have to lie.
Under your rationale....telling the truth would be immoral and lying would be moral. Can't you see how demented that is?
Click to expand...

And homosexuals already use mens bathrooms and there isn't any bad consequence unless they were to state they were homosexual (and thus making people uncomfortable), this is why DADT is essential for gays to be in the military. Right now there is no problem with gays in the military because no one knows who is gay unless they tell someone or do some sort of homosexual act. My rational isn't saying to lie, it's saying to keep things quiet so no one feels uncomfortable, violated, or put in inappropriate situations. Essentially, don't ask if someone is gay, and don't tell if you are gay. This way everyone can serve and no one feels uncomfortable/violated. To serve and be openly gay would make many uncomfortable living, showering, and sharing facilities with that homosexual person for obvious reasons. We have male and female facilities for the same reason why we shouldn't allow openly gay individuals in the military, it makes people uncomfortable and is not appropriate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom