• 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

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy - NYTimes.com

By THOM SHANKER
Published: February 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — The top generals from the Army and the Air Force expressed deep concern on Tuesday about moving rapidly to lift the ban on openly gay service members, saying it could make it harder for their forces to do their jobs while fighting two wars.

The comments by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of the staff, and Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, may provide political cover for members of Congress who oppose President Obama’s call for repealing the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years,” General Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.”

Hopefully this will encourage a more robust analysis of the proposed policy change.
 
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.

The Gay Gene?

When it comes to questions of the genetics of any behavior-homosexuality included-all of the following statements are likely to be at least roughly true:


Such and such a behavior "is genetic";
There are no genes that produce the behavior;
The genes associated with the behavior are found on such and such a chromosome;
The behavior is significantly heritable;
The behavior is not inherited.
The scientific distinctions that make these seeming contradictions perfectly reasonable and consistent seem completely misunderstood by the media who report on them.
 
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.

This is entirely inaccurate. All you are posting is propaganda and logical fallacies.

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.

More logical fallacies. The sky is NOT falling.

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.

More nonsense. Until you can show legitimate claims that liberals are suggesting that child molesters are such because of genetics, you are posting nothing but ridiculous drivel.

And as far as you link goes, the doctor in question is a psychoanalyst. Psychoanalysis's assessment of homosexuality has been thoroughly debunked as they depend on NO empirical research to make their assessment. Also, how sexual orientation is formed is unknown, but researchers agree that it is dependent on several factors including genetics, biology, and social influences. Now, remember that I said sexual orienation. That means the formation of heterosexuality is ALSO dependent on these factors.

I'm glad I could educate you on this issue.
 
Hopefully this will encourage a more robust analysis of the proposed policy change.

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.
 
I still contend if we're going to do this, housing issue must be addressed.
 
I still contend if we're going to do this, housing issue must be addressed.

Alright ..we'll build separate barracks and bathrooms for them and raise your taxes to pay for it.

Problem solved :mrgreen:
 
..oh, and we'll build some new subs to accommodate all female crews and all gay crews; with new colors: Naval Pink for the gals and Naval Lavender for the boys ;)
 
So they found two homophobic generals.. big wutido.
 
So they found two homophobic generals.. big wutido.

That's more than a little close-minded. I'm a huge proponent for gay rights and I still understand that introducing open homosexuality into the military is far more complex than the civilian world. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I think the military is one of the most productive ways of increasing tolerance. Anyone that's been to boot camp knows how much your perspective changes about people when your exposed to so many different backgrounds at one time. We were in port one time and started laughing because of the diversity in our group. It seems so natural in the military.

It's still more than a political statement for politicians and voters. It needs to be looked at seriously before they make the decision.

Generals don't have time to be homophobic, it's not some juvenile perspective. They care about their military. Their concerns are far deeper than you give them credit for.
 
That's more than a little close-minded. I'm a huge proponent for gay rights and I still understand that introducing open homosexuality into the military is far more complex than the civilian world. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I think the military is one of the most productive ways of increasing tolerance. Anyone that's been to boot camp knows how much your perspective changes about people when your exposed to so many different backgrounds at one time. We were in port one time and started laughing because of the diversity in our group. It seems so natural in the military.

It's still more than a political statement for politicians and voters. It needs to be looked at seriously before they make the decision.

Generals don't have time to be homophobic, it's not some juvenile perspective. They care about their military. Their concerns are far deeper than you give them credit for.

Sorry but it is bs.

This ban on homosexuals in the military is a leftover from the days when homosexuality was banned in general in society, either by law or by some sort of society moral often enforced by the church and the state.

While society has managed for the most part to get rid of the bans on homosexuality, the ban still remains entrenched in the macho world of the military.

There whole argument is the same lame argument that they used to prevent women severing in the military and that argument was overcome for the most part.

The argument is an old mans conservative argument that is based on the age old dividing up of roles in society.. men hunt and provide, women are homemakers and breeding machines. Anyone stepping outside this predefined role are punished. Like it or not, we dont live in the 1400s anymore, but in the 21st century.

These generals are homophobic period. Anyone against gays in the military are homophobic. Anyone against women in the military are sexist. That is a fact. These generals should do their freaking job instead of getting mixed up in politics.. if they want to be in politics, then leave the military and do so.. dont sit behind the desk at the pentagon and promote their narrow-minded crap.
 
Last edited:
That's more than a little close-minded. I'm a huge proponent for gay rights and I still understand that introducing open homosexuality into the military is far more complex than the civilian world. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I think the military is one of the most productive ways of increasing tolerance. Anyone that's been to boot camp knows how much your perspective changes about people when your exposed to so many different backgrounds at one time. We were in port one time and started laughing because of the diversity in our group. It seems so natural in the military.

It's still more than a political statement for politicians and voters. It needs to be looked at seriously before they make the decision.

Generals don't have time to be homophobic, it's not some juvenile perspective. They care about their military. Their concerns are far deeper than you give them credit for.

This allegation that they are worried about how this will impact "their forces to do their jobs while fighting two wars" is total BS. What the hell does that mean? How does ones sexual orientation come into play here? WHat difference does it make if I like men or women?
 
Sorry but it is bs.

This ban on homosexuals in the military is a leftover from the days when homosexuality was banned in general in society, either by law or by some sort of society moral often enforced by the church and the state.

While society has managed for the most part to get rid of the bans on homosexuality, the ban still remains entrenched in the macho world of the military.

There whole argument is the same lame argument that they used to prevent women severing in the military and that argument was overcome for the most part.

The argument is an old mans conservative argument that is based on the age old dividing up of roles in society.. men hunt and provide, women are homemakers and breeding machines. Anyone stepping outside this predefined role are punished. Like it or not, we dont live in the 1400s anymore, but in the 21st century.

I agree with this 100%, but had to omit the last paragraph to say that. The reasons aren't excuses not to lift the ban, but they are things to prepare for when they do.

I don't know if you were ever in the military, but the rank of General is incredibly political.

Is it possible that you need to be less judgmental of people? Especially when talking about tolerance.
 
I agree with this 100%, but had to omit the last paragraph to say that. The reasons aren't excuses not to lift the ban, but they are things to prepare for when they do.

I don't know if you were ever in the military, but the rank of General is incredibly political.

The job of General is only as political as the military and the political leaders allows. Their job is to serve the State and the State is the people and should stay the hell out of real politics as long as they wear that uniform. I could care less about internal military politics, but the military takes their orders from the people via their political masters. It is not the other way around. Society is accepting of homosexuals and there should be no difference in the military..

I mean come on.. does this guy really think that homosexuals go around with a bonner on constantly due to all the hot men in the military? Do hetrosexuals men go around with a bonner just because of a few females among them? Do males do that constantly in the private workspace?

Is it possible that you need to be less judgmental of people? Especially when talking about tolerance.

Tolerance? Why the hell should I be less judgemental of people who lack tolerance and wish to deny basic rights against a portion of the population based on sexuality, religion or what not? Sorry but such views are unacceptable and should be fought against regardless of who believes it. Being a General does NOT give you a get out jail free card for having bigot beliefs that belong in the dark ages and not in the 21st century.
 
Sorry but it is bs.

This ban on homosexuals in the military is a leftover from the days when homosexuality was banned in general in society, either by law or by some sort of society moral often enforced by the church and the state.

While society has managed for the most part to get rid of the bans on homosexuality, the ban still remains entrenched in the macho world of the military.

There whole argument is the same lame argument that they used to prevent women severing in the military and that argument was overcome for the most part.

The argument is an old mans conservative argument that is based on the age old dividing up of roles in society.. men hunt and provide, women are homemakers and breeding machines. Anyone stepping outside this predefined role are punished. Like it or not, we dont live in the 1400s anymore, but in the 21st century.

These generals are homophobic period. Anyone against gays in the military are homophobic. Anyone against women in the military are sexist. That is a fact. These generals should do their freaking job instead of getting mixed up in politics.. if they want to be in politics, then leave the military and do so.. dont sit behind the desk at the pentagon and promote their narrow-minded crap.
I'm glad you don't get to vote in our elections, your mouthfoaming rhetoric gives me a headache. You don't mind spending US taxpayer dollars since you don't have to contribute. This is all going to create a larger burden on the taxpayers.
 
The job of General is only as political as the military and the political leaders allows. Their job is to serve the State and the State is the people and should stay the hell out of real politics as long as they wear that uniform. I could care less about internal military politics, but the military takes their orders from the people via their political masters. It is not the other way around. Society is accepting of homosexuals and there should be no difference in the military..

This is the most ridiculous description of the role of General I have ever heard. Do you think that they study and train in the strategies of war for their entire career to become the slaves of elected officials? They are the experts. To refuse to listen to them on military matters is foolish. Your concept is lacking

I mean come on.. does this guy really think that homosexuals go around with a bonner on constantly due to all the hot men in the military? Do hetrosexuals men go around with a bonner just because of a few females among them? Do males do that constantly in the private workspace?

Have you been in the military? Actually, I left the military and went to the oilfield and it's much the same out here. Put a girl on an offshore drilling rig and guys go nuts. It's something about women in a masculine environment.

Though seriously, this still isn't justification to exclude. Just something that should be planned for.

Tolerance? Why the hell should I be less judgemental of people who lack tolerance and wish to deny basic rights against a portion of the population based on sexuality, religion or what not? Sorry but such views are unacceptable and should be fought against regardless of who believes it. Being a General does NOT give you a get out jail free card for having bigot beliefs that belong in the dark ages and not in the 21st century.

If you can't be tolerant to those you disagree with, how do you expect the ones you consider to be intolerant to ever adapt? I don't see how you can preach one thing and do another. I'm not saying you should condone hatred, but it would be nice if you didn't embrace it.
 
This is the most ridiculous description of the role of General I have ever heard. Do you think that they study and train in the strategies of war for their entire career to become the slaves of elected officials? They are the experts. To refuse to listen to them on military matters is foolish. Your concept is lacking



Have you been in the military? Actually, I left the military and went to the oilfield and it's much the same out here. Put a girl on an offshore drilling rig and guys go nuts. It's something about women in a masculine environment.

Though seriously, this still isn't justification to exclude. Just something that should be planned for.



If you can't be tolerant to those you disagree with, how do you expect the ones you consider to be intolerant to ever adapt? I don't see how you can preach one thing and do another. I'm not saying you should condone hatred, but it would be nice if you didn't embrace it.
Maybe this is the way the Spanish military thinks.
 
With al due respect to the gay community, it's really not worth the disruption this WILL cause on morale and order in the military. Do you really think it's worth going through the assimilation process just to give a very small precentage of the armed forces the "right to openly be gay and serve"? More so during a war?

Uhm hello.... not a bright move for so little a return.
 
This is the most ridiculous description of the role of General I have ever heard. Do you think that they study and train in the strategies of war for their entire career to become the slaves of elected officials? They are the experts. To refuse to listen to them on military matters is foolish. Your concept is lacking

No, because this has nothing to do with military matters and that is my point. Gays have been serving in the military long before Jesus supposedly walked this earth, and it has had zero impact on the military. Your sexual orientation is not the concern of the military, nor is your religion, nor is your ethnicity.

Are you seriously saying that if a General came and said it would be best to ban Black people from the military because they might cause problems in the military? You do know that was once used as an excuse by the very same top brass to prevent black men in serving? How is this ANY different?

Just because you like the same sex, how on earth should that some how make you any less of a person to serve in the military? Does being a woman, black, Jew or Muslim make you less of a person and a problem for serving in the military?

Have you been in the military? Actually, I left the military and went to the oilfield and it's much the same out here. Put a girl on an offshore drilling rig and guys go nuts. It's something about women in a masculine environment.

I know, and guess what.. deal with it. Now if the girl cant cut the physical aspects, then fine, but that goes for any man as well. We have to get past this set in stone religious based dogma on what a man and a woman can and can not do. Women can do ANYTHING a man can do if they set their minds to it.

Though seriously, this still isn't justification to exclude. Just something that should be planned for.

So we should plan for peoples sexist and bigatory? :rofl talk about appeasing a minority.... guess we should plan for accepting child rapists, murders and terrorists .. after they just have a different opinion on what the law is..

If you can't be tolerant to those you disagree with, how do you expect the ones you consider to be intolerant to ever adapt? I don't see how you can preach one thing and do another. I'm not saying you should condone hatred, but it would be nice if you didn't embrace it.

There is one hell of a difference being tolerant over political differences and being tolerant of people who are for open discrimination against others based on sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity. We dont accept racism in society, nor do we accept sexism and nor do we accept discrimination based on religion.. well for the most part. Why the hell should the military be any different than the society it serves?
 
There is one hell of a difference being tolerant over political differences and being tolerant of people who are for open discrimination against others based on sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity. We dont accept racism in society, nor do we accept sexism and nor do we accept discrimination based on religion.. well for the most part. Why the hell should the military be any different than the society it serves?

Well said and totally agree.
 
With al due respect to the gay community, it's really not worth the disruption this WILL cause on morale and order in the military. Do you really think it's worth going through the assimilation process just to give a very small precentage of the armed forces the "right to openly be gay and serve"? More so during a war?

what is it gonna change? have you got examples?

Uhm hello.... not a bright move

TWSS
 
Back
Top Bottom