• 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!

2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

Councilman said:
Talk about propaganda.

Simply Google gay gene hoax and learn something.
Click to expand...

He's got you there Captain.

I googled "moon landing hoax" and there are a hundred thousand results, so that puts an end to that debate.
 
American said:
Name a govt policy that gets implimented for free.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. All the people pretending that this policy change will have no impact on the budget are being ridiculous.

In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that the cost of discharging and replacing service members fired because of their sexual orientation during the policy’s first 10 years totaled at least $190.5 million. This amounts to roughly $20,000 per discharged service member.

Analysis of GAO’s methodology, however, shows that the $190 million figure may be wildly off the mark. A recent study by the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that GAO’s analysis total left out several important factors, such as the high cost of training officers—commissioned soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen with several years of service experience—who were discharged due to their sexual orientation. When these costs were factored in, the cost to the American taxpayer jumped to $363.8 million—$173.3 million, or 91 percent, more than originally reported by GAO.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see you're on the side of fiscal sanity, American.
 
aps said:
So your belief is that if they allow gay people in the military, gay people will make out in public and scream, "I'm GAY!" to the world? :shock:

james, I don't know about you, but it's very rare that I have a conversation with co-workers about whether I'm heterosexual, bisexual, or gay. It doesn't come up....at all! Does that mean we have a DADT where I work?
Click to expand...

To make it equal (because a gay or lesbian soldier could be discharged for saying "I love you" to a same-sex partner back home): I think we should just ban all phone calls home to loved ones.

That's equality. Otherwise, a phone call home to a girlfriend or wife is the same thing as shouting "I'M STRAIGHT" to everyone. They shouldn't be asking or telling about such things either.

They're there to fight and nothing more. Calling home to loved ones is a waste of tax-payer dollars.

And isn't "high-fiving" a really straight thing to do? I think that should be banned. Because, God knows, you could be removed if you walk a little light in the loafers - isn't that the same as shouting "I'M GAY". Well, then high-fiving is the same as shouting "I'M STRAIGHT".

I'm just sick of everyone shouting about their sex lives all the time with everything they do.

Isn't that how the world works?

;)
 
American said:
You don't know much about govt do you?
Click to expand...

what about post #53? It's not just that it would not cost anything, it would also allow to spare American Taxpayer's Money™ :2wave:
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Good job ignoring the existing costs just quoted to you.

What one-liner might we anticipate next?
Click to expand...
You mean like your two one-liners? What costs were quoted to me?
 
Councilman said:
Unless society is ready to face the fact that being a homosexual is nothing more that a life style choice and goes against nature and is perversion the whole subject is a waste of time and effort.

NAMBLA will be next to declare that it's not their fault they were born to molest little boys just like some Mormon Sect's believe it's okay to force 12 year old girls to marry dirty old men.

With enough pressure the Liberals will say we are haters and intolerant for saying no to all child molesters, because they can't help it because it's the result of some mystery gene that does not even exist, like the claims the homosexuals have falsely claimed in the past.
Click to expand...

How is this at all relevant to the thread topic? Goodness...:doh
 
aps said:
Huh? If men and women can serve together, what is the difference if gay people are serving? This business that heterosexuals believe that gay people are attracted to EVERY person of their same sex is so ludicrous. Gay people are just like us--they are attracted to some people, but not all. Do these stupid generals think, "Joey is gay. He must be staring at my ass. He must want to BF me." Oh brother. Talk about ignorant.
Click to expand...

Yea, those stupid generals. What do they know about the military?
 
Ethereal said:
Yea, those stupid generals. What do they know about the military?
Click to expand...
Remember when the libs bashed Bush about dismissing certain generals in 2002? Boy they couldn't get over how he just wasn't listening; and now here they are bashing the generals.
 
aps said:
How does someone's sexual orientation impact their ability to serve our country? Can you please explain this to me?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, and no one has ever made the argument that it would. The problem is with increased unit friction and degraded cohesiveness. Not that you would know anything about it...
 
Ethereal said:
It doesn't, and no one has ever made the argument that it would. The problem is with increased unit friction and degraded cohesiveness. Not that you would know anything about it...
Click to expand...

So the only way that unit friction and degraded cohesiveness is when we let gay people serve in the military? Wow. I could see how I would know nothing about that kind of stuff. :roll:

As to your other comment about what generals know about the military, when a Brigadier General tells me that she believes gay people should be able to serve in the military, I think she has some knowledge about the military, don't you?
 
American said:
Remember when the libs bashed Bush about dismissing certain generals in 2002? Boy they couldn't get over how he just wasn't listening; and now here they are bashing the generals.
Click to expand...

Still nothing to say about post #53? That's surprising, because it's the post that destroys your arguments.
 
bub said:
Still nothing to say about post #53? That's surprising, because it's the post that destroys your arguments.
Click to expand...
Nothing destoys my argument, but you can legally fantasize all you want. My argument is that it is a military matter, and shouldn't be political. You want argue as a non-stakeholder go ahead.
 
American said:
Nothing destoys my argument, but you can legally fantasize all you want. My argument is that it is a military matter, and shouldn't be political. You want argue as a non-stakeholder go ahead.
Click to expand...

OK, so you said that it would cost American Taxpayer's Money but the post #53 showed that it was the contrary, and you don't want to talk about it.
 
RightinNYC said:
Exactly right. All the people pretending that this policy change will have no impact on the budget are being ridiculous.



I'm glad to see you're on the side of fiscal sanity, American.
Click to expand...
Okay, I getcha. So if we change the policy to open gay lifestyle all those cost will go away and it will be free. Thanks, I stand corrected. I'm glad we have these analysis available to show us the err of our ways.
 
American said:
Okay, I getcha. So if we change the policy to open gay lifestyle all those cost will go away and it will be free. Thanks, I stand corrected. I'm glad we have these analysis available to show us the err of our ways.
Click to expand...

My opinion of you has heightened. *sigh*
 
Councilman said:
Talk about propaganda.

Simply Google gay gene hoax and learn something.
Click to expand...

You read nothing that I wrote, you are so entrenched in your innaccuracies. Please post anywhere that I claimed there was a gay gene. Try to educate yourself.
 
aps said:
So the only way that unit friction and degraded cohesiveness is when we let gay people serve in the military?
Click to expand...

Only way? No, it's just one way that it could happen. Nevertheless, it is a very distinct possibility, which is why so many people are hesitant to rush into repealing DADT.

Wow. I could see how I would know nothing about that kind of stuff. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, you don't.

As to your other comment about what generals know about the military, when a Brigadier General tells me that she believes gay people should be able to serve in the military, I think she has some knowledge about the military, don't you?
Click to expand...

Sure, she has some knowledge about the military, but the military is not a homogeneous organization that can be spoken of in meaningless generalities. I'm sure she has a lot of knowledge about drinking coffee and doing paper work but her understanding of combat units and their cohesiveness is nonexistent.
 
Last edited:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f7js0mLwY4"]YouTube- West Wing scene - Don't Ask Don't Tell debate[/ame]

(fitswallis about a minute in)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom