• 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

what do you not understand about dadt?
 
I don't understand why some people are still so gung-ho about DADT. It is a bad policy, and clearly this article is an example of why, yet there are some of you here who keep saying the Sgt was wrong and she knew what she was getting into, and blah blah blah.

Yet, I bet you can't name one benefit that has come out of this debacle. What good did DADT achieve here?

Did it allow the police to do a better job? Did the military eliminate a "risk factor"? Did it allow the military to be more effective?

Seriously, what benefit has come out of this because of DADT? Anything?!
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You just continue to demonstrate how you neither understand the concepts of procreation, genetics, and inherited characteristics. The former is an ACT, a BEHAVIOR. The latter are things formed from genetic material. You are embarrassing yourself every time you post this foolishness. Now, I am aware that you have refused to respond to my posts, but I will ask you again... AND, I'm going to ask other DP members to help me out here by ALSO asking you this question until you respond.

If, as you claim, heterosexuality is genetic because one can only procreate through heterosexuality, please identify the gene or genetic material that identifies one as heterosexual.
Click to expand...

Cap,

I suggest you get some supplies. If you're waiting for an honest answer it'll be a while.
 
Redress said:
Point for point was making overlong, difficult to read and follow posts. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Grow up? You only magically started doing it after I began quoting you word for word. Funny how you didn't mention that. Talk about dishonesty.

You posted a regulation that stated the military could discharge her for getting married. I quoted the exact section.
Click to expand...

And I quoted you where it mentions being married to someone of the same sex.

I have also provided a ton more information, all of which you ignore.
Click to expand...

That is a baldfaced lie. There is no sugar coating it. I have quoted you DIRECTLY more than once. Please do not tell such obvious lies. I will quote myself again quoting you if you want to continue this dishonesty.

Quick question: What type discharge did the Sgt. get?
Click to expand...

Honorable.

Quick question for you. Was she forced out?
 
liblady said:
total bull****. the police had no right whatsoever to relay that information. and the military should never LOOK for that info, under current rules. you're off base here.
Click to expand...

Actually no I'm not. Of course they had the right. Did you even read why they were there?

Read the rules I quoted to Redress from her own posts and from an independent source. BOTH say you cannot be married to someone of the same sex. PERIOD. End of story. That is why she was discharged.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
When you support your claim, you might get away with comments like this. Now it is just laughable though.
Click to expand...

Already have. Still waiting for proof of a natural function of homosexual sex.

By all means, keep digging that hole :)
 
texmaster said:
Grow up? You only magically started doing it after I began quoting you word for word. Funny how you didn't mention that. Talk about dishonesty.



And I quoted you where it mentions being married to someone of the same sex.



That is a baldfaced lie. There is no sugar coating it. I have quoted you DIRECTLY more than once. Please do not tell such obvious lies. I will quote myself again quoting you if you want to continue this dishonesty.



Honorable.

Quick question for you. Was she forced out?
Click to expand...

No one has claimed she was not married. No one has claimed the military could not discharge her for being married. Why do you think if you keep repeating the points no one is arguing about will make you right about everything.

Now, since we understand she was discharged honorably, will you also admit she still has her veterans benefits and received separation pay? Will you tell me what crime she was convicted of? Will you tell me which she faced, NJP or a court marshal?
 
Redress said:
No one has claimed she was not married. No one has claimed the military could not discharge her for being married. Why do you think if you keep repeating the points no one is arguing about will make you right about everything.
Click to expand...

YOU DID.

How many times do I have to quote you claiming she broke no law?

And please stop trying to be clever because you are failing miserably at it.

Must I quote what the Senate passed AGAIN?

Now, since we understand she was discharged honorably, will you also admit she still has her veterans benefits and received separation pay? Will you tell me what crime she was convicted of? Will you tell me which she faced, NJP or a court marshal?
Click to expand...

How does that change AT ALL that she was discharged for being married? Explain that.

You are so obsessed with detail I never even debated you can't even get your head around why she was discharged.

And once again you can't debate the points or the lies you spread about me ignoring your posts when I quoted you directly. Its a shameful dishonest practice that is becoming more common in your posts in this thread.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
YOU DID.

How many times do I have to quote you claiming she broke no law?

And please stop trying to be clever because you are failing miserably at it.

Must I quote what the Senate passed AGAIN?



How does that change AT ALL that she was discharged for being married? Explain that.

You are so obsessed with detail I never even debated you can't even get your head around why she was discharged.

And once again you can't debate the points or the lies you spread about me ignoring your posts when I quoted you directly. Its a shameful dishonest practice that is becoming more common in your posts in this thread.
Click to expand...

If she broke a law, show where she was tried for breaking that law. There was no NJP, there was no court marshal, she got an honorable with benefits because there was no misconduct. Keep repeating the stuff no one is arguing, it won't prove your point any more than anything else you have said. The DADT policy calls for a discharge under certain circumstances. That is it.
 
Redress said:
No one has claimed the military could not discharge her for being married.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing this out in a separate post because I am sick to death of your dishonesty

A quote from page 15 from YOU. No one else, YOU.

While her discharge was perfectly legal, she did nothing of her own to get discharged.
Click to expand...

Did she get married Redress? Did anyone force her to get married? Did she know the consequences of getting married? Is she responsible for her own actions.

YES NO YES AND YES.

HER actions LED to her discharge Redress. This double-talk bull**** you spew that somehow she can be discharged legally for being married but remain blameless is the worst form of deceptive dishonesty.

Your pitiful doubletalk has once again been exposed.
 
texmaster said:
I'm pointing this out in a separate post because I am sick to death of your dishonesty

A quote from page 15 from YOU. No one else, YOU.



Did she get married Redress? Did anyone force her to get married? Did she know the consequences of getting married? Is she responsible for her own actions.

YES NO YES AND YES.

HER actions LED to her discharge Redress. This double-talk bull**** you spew that somehow she can be discharged legally for being married but remain blameless is the worst form of deceptive dishonesty.

Your pitiful doubletalk has once again been exposed.
Click to expand...


Whether or not she was married is completely irrelevent. The police had no right to out her to the Air Force.

The police behaved maliciously and they need to lose their badges, pensions, and reputations over it.
 
texmaster said:
I'm pointing this out in a separate post because I am sick to death of your dishonesty

A quote from page 15 from YOU. No one else, YOU.



Did she get married Redress? Did anyone force her to get married? Did she know the consequences of getting married? Is she responsible for her own actions.

YES NO YES AND YES.

HER actions LED to her discharge Redress. This double-talk bull**** you spew that somehow she can be discharged legally for being married but remain blameless is the worst form of deceptive dishonesty.

Your pitiful doubletalk has once again been exposed.
Click to expand...

So being married to someone of the same sex can get you kicked out of the army, why is this a good thing? Can you please tell me what is the benefit of this. Can you please show me how discharging this Sgt of 9 years was necessary in improving the military? Can you please give me a reason why anyone would still support DADT?
 
texmaster said:
I'm pointing this out in a separate post because I am sick to death of your dishonesty

A quote from page 15 from YOU. No one else, YOU.



Did she get married Redress? Did anyone force her to get married? Did she know the consequences of getting married? Is she responsible for her own actions.

YES NO YES AND YES.

HER actions LED to her discharge Redress. This double-talk bull**** you spew that somehow she can be discharged legally for being married but remain blameless is the worst form of deceptive dishonesty.

Your pitiful doubletalk has once again been exposed.
Click to expand...

And again you misunderstand. Some one has to bring this to the attention of the military. They do not go looking. So yes, she did nothing of her own to get discharged. She did not "tell".
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
A question for all of you attacking tex... if heterosexuality is not genetically predisposed, what are your alternate theories for why something like 99.9% of all eukaryotic organisms engage in this activity?
Click to expand...

Since sexual orientation is the issue, not one TYPE of sexual orientation, the issue would be how does sexual orientation develop. I think this has been explained numerous times: probably some combination of genetics, biology, and social aspects.

Understand, though. texmaster is arguing that because procreation occurs via heterosexual sex, it must be genetic. This is a ridiculous assumption and demonstrates a lack of understanding of genetics and biology.
 
Lightdemon said:
I don't understand why some people are still so gung-ho about DADT. It is a bad policy, and clearly this article is an example of why, yet there are some of you here who keep saying the Sgt was wrong and she knew what she was getting into, and blah blah blah.

Yet, I bet you can't name one benefit that has come out of this debacle. What good did DADT achieve here?

Did it allow the police to do a better job? Did the military eliminate a "risk factor"? Did it allow the military to be more effective?

Seriously, what benefit has come out of this because of DADT? Anything?!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...
good point jerry.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yup, another step on the path downward......;)
 
Jerry said:
DADT is bad policy, but the cops weren't in the wrong here.
Click to expand...
yes, they absolutely were in the wrong. what possible reason was there for them to inform the military?
 
texmaster said:
I'm pointing this out in a separate post because I am sick to death of your dishonesty

A quote from page 15 from YOU. No one else, YOU.



Did she get married Redress? Did anyone force her to get married? Did she know the consequences of getting married? Is she responsible for her own actions.

YES NO YES AND YES.

HER actions LED to her discharge Redress. This double-talk bull**** you spew that somehow she can be discharged legally for being married but remain blameless is the worst form of deceptive dishonesty.

Your pitiful doubletalk has once again been exposed.
Click to expand...
of course she's responsible for her actions, which DID NOT include outing herself to her employers. she is blameless under dadt, she upheld her end of the bargain. she didn't tell.

the police actions led to her discharge, plainly.
 
Jerry said:
Gays serving openly in the military can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

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......;)
 
liblady said:
of course she's responsible for her actions, which DID NOT include outing herself to her employers. she is blameless under dadt, she upheld her end of the bargain. she didn't tell.

the police actions led to her discharge, plainly.
Click to expand...

As well they should, she broke the rules.....;)
 
Taylor said:
I'm asking for alternate theories for the preponderance of heterosexuality. Got any?
Click to expand...

from wikipedia

In 2004, Italian researchers conducted a study of about 4,600 people who were the relatives of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. The researchers concluded that there was genetic material being passed down on the X chromosome which both promotes fertility in the mother and homosexuality in her male offspring. The connections discovered, would explain about 20% of the cases studied, indicating that this is a highly significant but not the sole genetic factor determining sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
 
Partisan said:
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......;)
Click to expand...

What gives your opinion any legitimacy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom