• 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!

Fox News Poll: Most Voters Say Allow Gays to Serve Openly

ptif219 said:
People don't care what is done in private. Why do gays think we want to know.
Click to expand...

Nobody talks about gay sex as much as conservatives do...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENnksnI0dDk"]YouTube- NH Rep. Nancy Elliott[/ame]

There you go. A Republican adamantly arguing that gays should not be allowed to marry in New Hampshire because of gay sex with a vivid description of it. Also, a discussion about how gay pornography is being shown to 5th graders. Good stuff!
 
Navy Pride said:
You want to get and accurate poll? Poll the people it affects...Veterans and acttive duty military.....Make a separate poll for the Navy.....I guarentee you will get a much different result......
Click to expand...

the military times did. sorry to disappoint; only 45% of the Navy wanted to keep DADT


now, mind you, the Marines were a pretty solid "no" vote to overturning that rule, as was generally the rest of the military.....


....but the Navy, man.... ;)
 
Winnb said:
They're not going to build separate housing for gay people. And even if they did, so what? What's a few Million more when we're still pissing away 10 BILLION per month in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

this isn't a "few million". we are talking about many many billions over the years to come; and that's the easy part to deal with. that's just money.
 
CriticalThought said:
Nobody talks about gay sex as much as conservatives do...

YouTube- NH Rep. Nancy Elliott

There you go. A Republican adamantly arguing that gays should not be allowed to marry in New Hampshire because of gay sex with a vivid description of it. Also, a discussion about how gay pornography is being shown to 5th graders. Good stuff!
Click to expand...

Imagine that talking about gays in a gay marriage discussion.
JC-hysterical.gif
JC-LOL.gif
 
ptif219 said:
Imagine that talking about gays in a gay marriage discussion.
JC-hysterical.gif
JC-LOL.gif
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that you don't get the joke.

I'm making fun of conservatives talking about gay sex in a gay marriage discussion. It wasn't a gay person who brought up gay sex, it was a Conservative law maker in a public meeting. Furthermore, it was the only argument she could come up with to argue against same sex marriage. "I think anal sex is gross, so there shouldn't be gay marriage." If that is the kind of intelligence you want to endorse, then have at it.
 
Navy Pride said:
I reported this post...Lets hope it get you suspended or better yet banned......
Click to expand...

Why would this be bannable? First, it's an obvious joke about the Navy/Village People/Gay meme. Second, it's only offensive if you consider being gay some sort of bad thing. Third, not being directed at any person in particular, it couldn't be considered a personal attack now could it?

After all the things you say about liberals, you go and get upset over that?

Anyway, dude above me brings up a point most people forget:

Being gay is not about gay sex. It's about being attracted to, and developing relationships with, the same gender. Loving someone of the same gender.

People get this idea that being gay is literally the only attribute a gay person has, that their sole purpose in life is gay sex all day, every day. And, someone who acts like that surely isn't equal to us normal folks!

edit: How come every time I'm too lazy to quote and just say "the guy above me," my post ends up on the next page :p
 
CriticalThought said:
The sad thing is that you don't get the joke.

I'm making fun of conservatives talking about gay sex in a gay marriage discussion. It wasn't a gay person who brought up gay sex, it was a Conservative law maker in a public meeting. Furthermore, it was the only argument she could come up with to argue against same sex marriage. "I think anal sex is gross, so there shouldn't be gay marriage." If that is the kind of intelligence you want to endorse, then have at it.
Click to expand...

Oh, the irony. Isn't that what Ted Haggard used to tell people? :mrgreen:
 
Deuce said:
edit: Plus we all know the Navy is probably 60% gay already, right? We should be discussing whether to allow straight people to serve openly! :p
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks.
 
cpwill said:
the military times did. sorry to disappoint; only 45% of the Navy wanted to keep DADT


now, mind you, the Marines were a pretty solid "no" vote to overturning that rule, as was generally the rest of the military.....


....but the Navy, man.... ;)
Click to expand...

If that is true I would love to see how the question was posed.......

Even if so I don't think the Gov would want to piss off half of its military......I don't think the guys against it would be very happy campers if you average it out its well over 50% in all services
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
I am officially retracting my public warning towards Deuce. He said THE Navy, and was NOT referring to NP, and therefore was not a personal attack.
 
Navy Pride said:
If that is true I would love to see how the question was posed.......

Even if so I don't think the Gov would want to piss off half of its military......I don't think the guys against it would be very happy campers if you average it out its well over 50% in all services
Click to expand...

The other thing that's important to measure is how pissed people would be.

Ask something like "Would you:
-Definitely not re-enlist
-Be less likely to re-enlist
-Probably just gripe a lot and deal with it
-Not care
-Approve
-Live in deathly fear of the homo and be too frightened to speak out"

...ok maybe not that last one and I'm sure there's a more scientific way to ask.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Moderator's Warning:
I am officially retracting my public warning towards Deuce. He said THE Navy, and was NOT referring to NP, and therefore was not a personal attack.
Click to expand...

I apologize to Deuce.......Its my bad......I read his post wrong........:peace

To much scotch on the rocks........;)

He already sent me a PM and raised hell about it
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I apologize to Deuce.......I read his post wrong........:peace

To much scotch on the rocks........;)
Click to expand...

Vodka over here. :drink

I also have a solution to some of the resistance to gays in the military:

Gay guys make the best wingmen.

No, seriously. Nobody picks up women like a gay guy.
 
Anybody who says that people do not apologize publicly for making an error, read this thread. :)

Carry on.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Anybody who says that people do not apologize publicly for making an error, read this thread. :)

Carry on.
Click to expand...
Don't worry folks, I've already given CC some infraction points. I wrote them down on this little pad of paper I have right here at my desk. :lol:
 
Winnb said:
They're not going to build separate housing for gay people. And even if they did, so what? What's a few Million more when we're still pissing away 10 BILLION per month in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's spend more money on social engineering vice more equipment that could save lives on the battlefield. That's a good common sense approach to running a military.
 
danarhea said:
According to this poll, Americans favor gays serving openly in the military by more than a 2 to 1 margin. I will now wait for a few to proclaim that FOX News is now part of the elite Liberal media establishment.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

II - All Opening Post threads posted in *BN* must have:

• Static link to an article from a bona-fide news organization.
• Dateline within the past 48 hours.
• Exact same title as the cited article.
• Quoted short excerpts from the article.
• Your own unique content to spur discussion.


***
Yes, gays should be allowed to serve openly. 'Nuf said :2wave:
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Yeah, let's spend more money on social engineering vice more equipment that could save lives on the battlefield. That's a good common sense approach to running a military.
Click to expand...

Don't act like for one second the procurement and acquisition crowd is one bit interested in "saving lives on the battlefield". It only took them two years to get armored vehicles to Iraq.

Remember the Crusader? That's what the ACQ folks are about, sarge.
 
kansaswhig said:
Don't act like for one second the procurement and acquisition crowd is one bit interested in "saving lives on the battlefield". It only took them two years to get armored vehicles to Iraq.

Remember the Crusader? That's what the ACQ folks are about, sarge.
Click to expand...

Canning troops up in PC's isn't what I would call, "saving lives on the battlefield". It's been my opinion early on that dismounted patrols would have saved hundreds of lives. A rifleman can't fight mounted and a squad can't mass firepower, nor create interlocking fields of fire from inside a PC, sir.

I know my troops wouldn't have been couped up in an IFV, providing the enemy with a massed target, waiting for some electronics goo-roo with a one-five-five round and a cell phone to blow them up.
 
apdst said:
Canning troops up in PC's isn't what I would call, "saving lives on the battlefield". It's been my opinion early on that dismounted patrols would have saved hundreds of lives. A rifleman can't fight mounted and a squad can't mass firepower, nor create interlocking fields of fire from inside a PC, sir.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, but that's how it was chosen to fight the war that you love and support so much. Trust me, I had to live it. I hated driving down the road instead of walking it made NO sense what so ever. They eventually pulled their heads out but not until thousands had been slayed inside of the death traps on wheels. I just don't want you pretending that our procurement and acquisition systems are about supporting the Soldier or saving lives. They aren't. They are about getting rich.

Crusader? Nighthawk? New battleships? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Not for troops.
 
kansaswhig said:
I agree 100%, but that's how it was chosen to fight the war that you love and support so much. Trust me, I had to live it. I hated driving down the road instead of walking it made NO sense what so ever. They eventually pulled their heads out but not until thousands had been slayed inside of the death traps on wheels. I just don't want you pretending that our procurement and acquisition systems are about supporting the Soldier or saving lives. They aren't. They are about getting rich.

Crusader? Nighthawk? New battleships? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Not for troops.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did that **** come from?

I just don't want you pretending that our procurement and acquisition systems are about supporting the Soldier or saving lives.
Click to expand...

The point I was making, is that the next time the Liberals start whining about soldiers in field lacking equipment, stop and think about the new billets that had to be constructed to accomodate their agenda.

I was an 11M, remember? I know all to well about water coolers that we couldn't drink from, ammo we couldn't fire, amphibious vehicles that would probably sink and fuel pumps that failed and could only be replaced by sending the track on a year long journey back to depot maintanance to have it replaced. It couldn't be done at the unit level, because the turret had to be taken completely off the vehicle.

Trust me, I have no illusions about how the system works.

Ya'll still having fun with those vampire pumps?
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Imagine talking about sex in a discussion of gay marriage. How terrible.
MG_119.gif
MG_119.gif
Click to expand...

It's strange how gays never bring it up, only the conservatives. That is why I was saying, nobody talks about gay sex in public as much as conservatives do. It's funny how obsessed you guys seem to be about it.
 
kansaswhig said:
I agree 100%, but that's how it was chosen to fight the war that you love and support so much. Trust me, I had to live it. I hated driving down the road instead of walking it made NO sense what so ever. They eventually pulled their heads out but not until thousands had been slayed inside of the death traps on wheels. I just don't want you pretending that our procurement and acquisition systems are about supporting the Soldier or saving lives. They aren't. They are about getting rich.

Crusader? Nighthawk? New battleships? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Not for troops.
Click to expand...

They haven't buit a battleship in 80 years....I believe it was prior to WW2 in the thirties......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom