• 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

Partisan said:
I'd have to say it is the two of you who are steering the discussion in a new direction, having lost the debate on the topic at hand......:lol:
Click to expand...

I'd have to say that, as usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
 
texmaster said:
I haven't fared well? You can't even admit the very act of procreation is heterosexual in nature. You lost the gay marriage argument long ago when I destroyed any hint at it being genetic. Your response was to deny basic biological function when it comes to procreation. I'd hardly call that a win for you :)
Click to expand...

:roll::roll::roll:
 
texmaster said:
So you are reversing your position. No real surprise. If someone on your side pushed you enough, I knew you would.
Click to expand...

No, my position has been 100 % consistent. Under DADT, the military had no choice but to discharge her. The military was not at fault. She did not inform her command, but did put herself at some risk by getting married. The police who informed her command where 100 % in the wrong. DADT is 100 % a bad policy.

Sigh. We've been through this. She didn't secretly carry out a relationship.

She went out and received a public license of marriage from the state. How can you pretend that is private?



To avoid you trying to wiggle out of this in any way, answer one simple question. Do you understand a marriage license is a matter of public record yes or no?
Click to expand...

She does not have to "secretly carry out a relationship". Nothing in DADT says she does. She has to not inform her command. She did not. The command has to not look into her orientation. It did not. Outside of some one deciding to turn her in, she is still serving her country honorably.

Whether the marriage license is public or not is irrelevant, since the command is not going to look to find it.
 
texmaster said:
I haven't fared well? You can't even admit the very act of procreation is heterosexual in nature. You lost the gay marriage argument long ago when I destroyed any hint at it being genetic. Your response was to deny basic biological function when it comes to procreation. I'd hardly call that a win for you :)
Click to expand...

Wow, dishonest much? I have been quite clear, heterosexual sex has been, until recently, required for procreation. You claimed however that heterosexuality(which is an orientation) is genetic, which you still have not proven, and been repeatedly laughed at over. To make it more funny, while you claim that heterosexuality is genetic, you further claims that no one can prove that homosexuality is genetic, despite it being another facet of orientation.
 
Redress said:
No, my position has been 100 % consistent. Under DADT, the military had no choice but to discharge her. The military was not at fault. She did not inform her command, but did put herself at some risk by getting married. The police who informed her command where 100 % in the wrong. DADT is 100 % a bad policy.
Click to expand...

Wow. Do you even read your own posts? Ever?

From just the last page you proclaimed:

She broke no laws
Click to expand...

Yet you just admitted she did.

Then from earlier in this thread you said:

This does not mean the police where right(they where not), only that she did, by getting married, violate military regulations.
Click to expand...

Yet as I just showed, you claimed the last page she "broke no law"

Is doublespeak an artform or is this just learned behavior?

Please, stick to one side of a story so you don't embarrass yourself anymore.

She does not have to "secretly carry out a relationship". Nothing in DADT says she does.
Click to expand...

LOL Now this is a good one. She is not supposed to tell anyone of her relationship but that isn't classified as secret to you?

What do you call it? public? :rofl

She has to not inform her command. She did not. The command has to not look into her orientation. It did not. Outside of some one deciding to turn her in, she is still serving her country honorably.
Click to expand...

Not if she broke the law which you admitted she did. But then you said she didn't. Then you said she did.

Please let me know what face I'm addressing next time :)
 
Redress said:
Wow, dishonest much?
Click to expand...

Nope. You've got that down to an artform.

I have been quite clear, heterosexual sex has been, until recently, required for procreation.
Click to expand...

Just remember, I read your posts. When you change your position again, I will remind you of this :)

You claimed however that heterosexuality(which is an orientation) is genetic, which you still have not proven, and been repeatedly laughed at over.
Click to expand...

Only by people who cannot admit that heterosexual sex is the only natural form to pass genetics to another generation.

To make it more funny, while you claim that heterosexuality is genetic, you further claims that no one can prove that homosexuality is genetic, despite it being another facet of orientation.
Click to expand...

Once again you ignore the obvious in an attempt to duck the issue.

Heterosexual sex is a requirement for procreation. You cannot disconnect that from the act of being heterosexual.

There is nothing natural about homosexual sex whatsover, down to the orifice used. In fact, quite the reverse when it comes to male homosexuality.

The only hysterical thing here is watching you pretend heterosexual sex and being heterosexual aren't linked. Thats the most amusing thing about your arguments :)
 
texmaster said:
Only by people who cannot admit that heterosexual sex is the only natural form to pass genetics to another generation.
Click to expand...

Procreation from heterosexual sex, still does NOT prove that heterosexuality is genetic.

I'll just assume you are in the 6th grade and not insult you because you might not have covered that chapter yet in school.
 
TheNextEra said:
Procreation from heterosexual sex, still does NOT prove that heterosexuality is genetic.
Click to expand...

Right. So who taught early man this was the way to procreate?

Who molded the male and female organs to allow for procreation between the two sexes?

Please, go right ahead and explain it :rofl

I'll just assume you are in the 6th grade and not insult you because you might not have covered that chapter yet in school.
Click to expand...

By all means, explain your bs theory. I'd love to hear more spin on this.
 
texmaster said:
Wow. Do you even read your own posts? Ever?

From just the last page you proclaimed:



Yet you just admitted she did.

Then from earlier in this thread you said:



Yet as I just showed, you claimed the last page she "broke no law"

Is doublespeak an artform or is this just learned behavior?

Please, stick to one side of a story so you don't embarrass yourself anymore.



LOL Now this is a good one. She is not supposed to tell anyone of her relationship but that isn't classified as secret to you?

What do you call it? public? :rofl



Not if she broke the law which you admitted she did. But then you said she didn't. Then you said she did.

Please let me know what face I'm addressing next time :)
Click to expand...

This is why people should not post from ignorance.

1) A law is not a military regulation. A military regulation is not a law. They are not the same thing.

2) DADT is kinda like fitness standards. If your body fat exceeds a certain amount, and you do not get it down, you are in violation of the standard and be discharged.

3) This part is slightly complicated(well, not to most people) so pay attention and do try and follow along. Under DADT if a command discovers a person is gay, a process starts. That process has to find 1 of 3 indicators to discharge a person. Those indicators are statements(saying "I am gay" to some one in the command...see note below on this), actions(getting caught having sex with some one of the same sex, all the way down to being seen holding hands with some one of the same sex...see note 2 below), and being married. If one of those indicators is found, then a discharge is indicated. No one is charged with anything, there is no NJP(Non Judicial Punishment), and usually the person is discharged honorably.

Now, it should be clear to you that in fact, she committed no crime. Are you going to continue this insanely foolish argument?

Note 1: Part of why DADT is such a bad policy is that it gives those looking to get out an easy way to do so. Back when I served, those who just wanted to get out would go UA(Unauthorized Absence) or do drugs till they got caught. The downside is this process was kinda slow, and during the process, life was not pleasant, being on restriction, extra duty, and so on. Now, if some one decides they don't want to be in the military, they just tell some one in their command "I am gay", and get a quick and easy out. This is, for a number of reasons, bad.

Note 2: Oddly, going to a gay bar is considered one of the low risk activities for gays in the military. It's not against the rules, being there is not an indicator, and odds are no one else from the command will be there, except possibly other gays in the command. Going to a gay bar is less risky than going to the mall with your significant other for gays in the military.
 
texmaster said:
Right. So who taught early man this was the way to procreate?

Who molded the male and female organs to allow for procreation between the two sexes?

.
Click to expand...

No one, and no one. You can prove otherwise?
 
texmaster said:
Right. So who taught early man this was the way to procreate?

Who molded the male and female organs to allow for procreation between the two sexes?

Please, go right ahead and explain it :rofl
Click to expand...

Again, your questions have NOTHING to do with YOU having to PROVE what YOU claimed when YOU said that heterosexuality was genetic. Let's see your SCIENTIFIC PROOF that it is genetic. The act of procreation is not proof that heterosexuality is genetic.

You are only embarrassing yourself.
 
Redress said:
This is why people should not post from ignorance.

1) A law is not a military regulation. A military regulation is not a law. They are not the same thing.

2) DADT is kinda like fitness standards. If your body fat exceeds a certain amount, and you do not get it down, you are in violation of the standard and be discharged.

3) This part is slightly complicated(well, not to most people) so pay attention and do try and follow along. Under DADT if a command discovers a person is gay, a process starts. That process has to find 1 of 3 indicators to discharge a person. Those indicators are statements(saying "I am gay" to some one in the command...see note below on this), actions(getting caught having sex with some one of the same sex, all the way down to being seen holding hands with some one of the same sex...see note 2 below), and being married. If one of those indicators is found, then a discharge is indicated. No one is charged with anything, there is no NJP(Non Judicial Punishment), and usually the person is discharged honorably.

Now, it should be clear to you that in fact, she committed no crime. Are you going to continue this insanely foolish argument?

Note 1: Part of why DADT is such a bad policy is that it gives those looking to get out an easy way to do so. Back when I served, those who just wanted to get out would go UA(Unauthorized Absence) or do drugs till they got caught. The downside is this process was kinda slow, and during the process, life was not pleasant, being on restriction, extra duty, and so on. Now, if some one decides they don't want to be in the military, they just tell some one in their command "I am gay", and get a quick and easy out. This is, for a number of reasons, bad.
Note 2: Oddly, going to a gay bar is considered one of the low risk activities for gays in the military. It's not against the rules, being there is not an indicator, and odds are no one else from the command will be there, except possibly other gays in the command. Going to a gay bar is less risky than going to the mall with your significant other for gays in the military.
Click to expand...

Let me sum this thread up....
Outed, discharged, case closed....:2wave:
 
Redress said:
This is why people should not post from ignorance.

1) A law is not a military regulation. A military regulation is not a law. They are not the same thing.

2) DADT is kinda like fitness standards. If your body fat exceeds a certain amount, and you do not get it down, you are in violation of the standard and be discharged.
Click to expand...
I believe it's fair to say that it is illegal/against the law for her to be in the military - not sure whether she's "breaking the law" by being there, but the military sure would be breaking the law if they allowed her to stay knowing about her homosexuality.

DADT is a policy that outlines how the law will be enforced -- the law being that people who engage in homosexuality (or claim to be homosexual) are not allowed in the military.
 
Last edited:
DADT is bad policy, but the cops weren't in the wrong here.
 
TheNextEra said:
Again, your questions have NOTHING to do with YOU having to PROVE what YOU claimed when YOU said that heterosexuality was genetic. Let's see your SCIENTIFIC PROOF that it is genetic. The act of procreation is not proof that heterosexuality is genetic.

You are only embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

So you are telling us that the act of actually reproducing using the only natural method for humanity isn't genetic?

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
 
texmaster said:
So you are telling us that the act of actually reproducing using the only natural method for humanity isn't genetic?

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...

No, s/he is blinded by agenda.....;)
 
texmaster said:
So you are telling us that the act of actually reproducing using the only natural method for humanity isn't genetic?
Click to expand...

You claimed heterosexuality is genetic. The act of reproduction does not prove heterosexuality is genetic.

I shouldn't be too hard on you though, you will learn this later on in school.
 
Redress said:
This is why people should not post from ignorance.
Click to expand...

Yet you post anyway.

1) A law is not a military regulation. A military regulation is not a law. They are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Ah I see we need to go back to the dictionary again with you:

A rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those under the authority's control... Regulations also function to ensure uniform application of the law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/regulation

reg·u·la·tion (rěg'yə-lā'shən)
n.

A governmental order having the force of law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulation

Once again Redress, the slightest bit of reserch on your part would save you so much embarrassment.

2) DADT is kinda like fitness standards. If your body fat exceeds a certain amount, and you do not get it down, you are in violation of the standard and be discharged.
Click to expand...

Wrong as usual Redress and I just debunked it. Your spin doesn't change its meaning or enforcement power.

3) This part is slightly complicated(well, not to most people) so pay attention and do try and follow along. Under DADT if a command discovers a person is gay, a process starts. That process has to find 1 of 3 indicators to discharge a person. Those indicators are statements(saying "I am gay" to some one in the command...see note below on this), actions(getting caught having sex with some one of the same sex, all the way down to being seen holding hands with some one of the same sex...see note 2 below), and being married. If one of those indicators is found, then a discharge is indicated. No one is charged with anything, there is no NJP(Non Judicial Punishment), and usually the person is discharged honorably.
Click to expand...

Actually I understand it quite well. I wish you would stop speaking out of both sides of your face on this.

The very fact you ducked your own words which I directly quoted from you says a great deal about your ability to confront your own mistakes.

Now, it should be clear to you that in fact, she committed no crime. Are you going to continue this insanely foolish argument?
Click to expand...

LOL I'm still trying to figure out how you can be so incredibly hypocritical but admit she did commit a violation of the oath she swore to? How do you do that?

Note 1: Part of why DADT is such a bad policy is that it gives those looking to get out an easy way to do so. Back when I served, those who just wanted to get out would go UA(Unauthorized Absence) or do drugs till they got caught. The downside is this process was kinda slow, and during the process, life was not pleasant, being on restriction, extra duty, and so on. Now, if some one decides they don't want to be in the military, they just tell some one in their command "I am gay", and get a quick and easy out. This is, for a number of reasons, bad.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted. It doesn't change the fact she violated her oath. End of story.

Note 2: Oddly, going to a gay bar is considered one of the low risk activities for gays in the military. It's not against the rules, being there is not an indicator, and odds are no one else from the command will be there, except possibly other gays in the command. Going to a gay bar is less risky than going to the mall with your significant other for gays in the military.
Click to expand...

Again more opinion not fact.


Let's break it down even more simply.

She took an oath. She violated the regulation which as my definition proves has the force of a LAW and she was booted out when she was discovered.

Your pathetic attempt at claiming because no one caught her in the act means she didn't violate the regulation is beyond petty and simply proves you have no capacity to admit when you are wrong.

And you proved that in spades when you ducked your own words which I quoted word for word.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
You claimed heterosexuality is genetic. The act of reproduction does not prove heterosexuality is genetic.
Click to expand...

Are you ever going to support this ridiculous claim?

How can you separate the two? Explain your BS
 
texmaster said:
So you are telling us that the act of actually reproducing using the only natural method for humanity isn't genetic?

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with your argument that heterosexuality is genetic.
 
Redress said:
Which has nothing to do with your argument that heterosexuality is genetic.
Click to expand...

The same question. How do you separate the two? Explain yourself.

Making a declaration doesn't prove your claim in any way.
 
texmaster said:
Yet you post anyway.



Ah I see we need to go back to the dictionary again with you:

A rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those under the authority's control... Regulations also function to ensure uniform application of the law.

regulation legal definition of regulation. regulation synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

reg·u·la·tion (rěg'yə-lā'shən)
n.

A governmental order having the force of law.

Regulation | Define Regulation at Dictionary.com

Once again Redress, the slightest bit of reserch on your part would save you so much embarrassment.
Click to expand...

This is so easy it's almost embarrassing. Let's use your source(and it is a good one) to look up the word law. Since my argument is that regulations and laws are not the same thing, if the definitions are different, I am right: law legal definition of law. law synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

"In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability. Laws in the United States are made by federal, state, and local legislatures, judges, the president, state governors, and administrative agencies"

So tell me what criminal punishment was she subject to(note this has some very real requirements) or civil liability. When was her trial?

Wrong as usual Redress and I just debunked it. Your spin doesn't change its meaning or enforcement power.
Click to expand...

Just saying something is so does not make it so.

Actually I understand it quite well. I wish you would stop speaking out of both sides of your face on this.

The very fact you ducked your own words which I directly quoted from you says a great deal about your ability to confront your own mistakes.
Click to expand...

I have not ducked my own words. You read far more into them than was there. You are so hung up on this. That is part of your problem, you see what you want to see.


LOL I'm still trying to figure out how you can be so incredibly hypocritical but admit she did commit a violation of the oath she swore to? How do you do that?
Click to expand...

She agreed, under DADT to not tell. She did not tell.



Your opinion is noted. It doesn't change the fact she violated her oath. End of story.



Again more opinion not fact.
Click to expand...

The first is opinion, the second is accurate and documentable. They are also side notes I thought interesting.


Let's break it down even more simply.

She took an oath. She violated the regulation which as my definition proves has the force of a LAW and she was booted out when she was discovered.

Your pathetic attempt at claiming because no one caught her in the act means she didn't violate the regulation is beyond petty and simply proves you have no capacity to admit when you are wrong.

And you proved that in spades when you ducked your own words which I quoted word for word.
Click to expand...

You have a completely failed understanding of DADT, which, as usual you back up with no research, provide no sources, nothing but your word claiming you are right.
 
texmaster said:
Are you ever going to support this ridiculous claim?
Click to expand...

You're the one that made the claim that heterosexuality is genetic, it is up to YOU to support that claim. You can't. Thank you for conceding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom