• 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!

Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

It didn't help the muslims in Srebrenca, but I'll wait for Textmaster to post that tidbit....;)
Gays serving openly will cause a lack of cohesion, IMO......;)

This point has already been debunked in another thread, so your post is the written equivalent of fail.
 
I'm a Conservative, so this is saying something: I think you need to give Clinton more credit for issuing DADT. Much like how Blacks were considered 3/5 of a person for a time before finaly being counted as whole people, so did DADT create a period of time for everyone to acclimate to idea of gays serving openly in the military. DADT changed a military culture of complete rejection of gays by forcing everyone to realize that gays may be serving with them legally right now.

I realize the 3/5th rule served a different cause, and I know the 3/5th rule was about representation whereas DADT is not. As I already have a basic understanding of US history despite the public education system's best efforts, please spare me any irrelevant arguments pointing out that difference. I know, and I'm making another point.

Sure, DADT still forces gays to stay in the closet while they're serving, but if it weren't for DADT I don't think we could realistically push for gays to serve openly today. I think DADT helped sway public opinion, and in that way is not as bad of a policy as it may appear to be.

That's a good point. DADT was certainly a progressive idea at the time, but just like how the 3/5th rule was inherently wrong (although still a progressive idea), DADT is still a very bad policy.

I think you've made a very good comparison with the 3/5th rule. I'm quite impressed actually.
 
As well they should, she broke the rules.....;)

What you don't seem to understand is that the rules are obviously unfair.

The rules are such that if you are married to someone of the same sex, you can't be in the military. Yet there is also another rule that says as long as you don't make it known that you're homosexual, you can be in the military.

So which is it? Can a homosexual be in the military or not? You can't have rules having it both ways.
 
Back
Top Bottom