• 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!

Army discharges don't ask critic who told

Hence, "Don't ask, don't tell". Welcome to the real world. 'Nuff said?!?

Here's the part of Your Star's post that you highlighted: "It should be off limits, for all orientations. The Army has no business in the sexual lives of its soldiers. "

So, you agree that DADT should apply in the exact same way for heterosexuals, too? I ask for consistency's sake.
 
Here's the part of Your Star's post that you highlighted: "It should be off limits, for all orientations. The Army has no business in the sexual lives of its soldiers. "

So, you agree that DADT should apply in the exact same way for heterosexuals, too? I ask for consistency's sake.

Somehow....I doubt that in aplication Apstd does.....
 
No...I'm not saying that....But if that is the best that you can do in terms of debate...you are streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it.

So, since I'm streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it, how do you propose we discourage discrimination against a service member's sexual orientation? Are we to assume that it won't happen, simply because DADT has been repealed and that gays are incapable of discriminating against straights?

I can't wait for the Libbos to answer this question that I've posted a half-dozen times, with no answer, other than, "oooh, it's sexual harassment".

What's gonna happen when a gay company commander (an officer) and a gay platoon leader (an officer) go after a straight platoon sargeant (non-commissioned officer), because the platoon sargeant is at odds with the platoon leader? Let's don't act as if discrimination can't happen, because I've seen first hand how black officers will gang up on a white NCO.

Any solution to that, other than, "gee! that won't happen, because gays are smarter and cooler than straights and **** like that"?
 
Here's the part of Your Star's post that you highlighted: "It should be off limits, for all orientations. The Army has no business in the sexual lives of its soldiers. "

So, you agree that DADT should apply in the exact same way for heterosexuals, too? I ask for consistency's sake.

Since you're always advocating that you're smarter than I am, you understand that that is what I said. yes?

Am I unable to convey a point, or are some folks unable to comprehend that point? I havne't been to college; most of you ****ers claim the opposite. So, which is it?
 
Fine.. That works for me. You would be willing to discharge any soldier that exposes his sexual orientation right? So any straight soldier that talks about a girlfriend or posts a pin up girl should be discharged....right?

I'm glad that we both agree.
If we apply DADT to all soldiers, then yes. Your retort, sir?
 
And yet you ignore my scenario in which a gay soldier would be treated unjustly under DADT. Typical.

And, you ingore a scenario where a straight soldier is discriminated against, without DADT. Typical?
 
So, since I'm streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it, how do you propose we discourage discrimination against a service member's sexual orientation? Are we to assume that it won't happen, simply because DADT has been repealed and that gays are incapable of discriminating against straights?

I can't wait for the Libbos to answer this question that I've posted a half-dozen times, with no answer, other than, "oooh, it's sexual harassment".

What's gonna happen when a gay company commander (an officer) and a gay platoon leader (an officer) go after a straight platoon sargeant (non-commissioned officer), because the platoon sargeant is at odds with the platoon leader? Let's don't act as if discrimination can't happen, because I've seen first hand how black officers will gang up on a white NCO.

Any solution to that, other than, "gee! that won't happen, because gays are smarter and cooler than straights and **** like that"?

Ah.....it will be handled the same way any other discrimation claim is handled......duh!
 
A male asking another male about his sexual orientation isn't sexual harassment.

Yes, it is. Check with an EO rep, anything sexual in nature, whether it be by a male to male, male to female, female to male, or female to female is sexual harrassment to ask ANYTHING about sexually unwarranted.
 
Ah.....it will be handled the same way any other discrimation claim is handled......duh!

How is that, exactly? Oh, please, tell us in all your military experience, how discrimination cases are handled in the service.

Can't wait for this!
 
Yes, it is. Check with an EO rep, anything sexual in nature, whether it be by a male to male, male to female, female to male, or female to female is sexual harrassment to ask ANYTHING about sexually unwarranted.



Anything between opposite sex's. There's nothing that says anything between males and males, or females and females.

Unless, you can post actual documentation, of course. can you?
 
How is that, exactly? Oh, please, tell us in all your military experience, how discrimination cases are handled in the service.

Can't wait for this!

The same way they are handled anywhere else. How are they handled now? When you answer that question, you will have the answer to the silly question that you posted.
 
Since you're always advocating that you're smarter than I am, you understand that that is what I said. yes?

Am I unable to convey a point, or are some folks unable to comprehend that point? I havne't been to college; most of you ****ers claim the opposite. So, which is it?

I'm just making sure. No need to get all bent out of shape. Good for you for being consistent.
 
The same way they are handled anywhere else. How are they handled now? When you answer that question, you will have the answer to the silly question that you posted.

Care to show us how they are handled, "elsewhere"?
 
So, since I'm streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it, how do you propose we discourage discrimination against a service member's sexual orientation? Are we to assume that it won't happen, simply because DADT has been repealed and that gays are incapable of discriminating against straights?

I can't wait for the Libbos to answer this question that I've posted a half-dozen times, with no answer, other than, "oooh, it's sexual harassment".

What's gonna happen when a gay company commander (an officer) and a gay platoon leader (an officer) go after a straight platoon sargeant (non-commissioned officer), because the platoon sargeant is at odds with the platoon leader? Let's don't act as if discrimination can't happen, because I've seen first hand how black officers will gang up on a white NCO.

Any solution to that, other than, "gee! that won't happen, because gays are smarter and cooler than straights and **** like that"?

If a soldier is being unfair, or discriminatory to another soldier it will be handled, and dealt with just like any other situation like it. Is it really that hard to understand? LGBT soldiers don't want to be treated any different than any other soldier, they just want to be treated the same, and under DADT they aren't.

And you've still yet to answer my question about if you think that scenario I posted a few posts ago is okay. What are you scared to answer?
 
I'm just making sure. No need to get all bent out of shape. Good for you for being consistent.

In the service, the rules are the rules. I've explained this to you in another thread. The rules aren't flexible. When they become flexible, people die.
 
Care to show us how they are handled, "elsewhere"?

OK...I know that you are not that dense. Sexual harasment or discrimation claims are handled the same way in every jurisdiction around that country. Why would it be different if a straight soldier was claiming sexual harasment or discrimination against a gay leader?
Like I said....you are really streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching to find an argument here.
 
So, since I'm streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it, how do you propose we discourage discrimination against a service member's sexual orientation? Are we to assume that it won't happen, simply because DADT has been repealed and that gays are incapable of discriminating against straights?

I can't wait for the Libbos to answer this question that I've posted a half-dozen times, with no answer, other than, "oooh, it's sexual harassment".

What's gonna happen when a gay company commander (an officer) and a gay platoon leader (an officer) go after a straight platoon sargeant (non-commissioned officer), because the platoon sargeant is at odds with the platoon leader? Let's don't act as if discrimination can't happen, because I've seen first hand how black officers will gang up on a white NCO.

Any solution to that, other than, "gee! that won't happen, because gays are smarter and cooler than straights and **** like that"?

You are both making an assertion that no one has made (gays can't discriminate) and avoiding the obvious answer. Try this:

What would happen if a male company commander (an officer) and a male platoon leader (an officer) go after a female platoon sargeant (non-commissioned officer), because the platoon sargeant is at odds with the platoon leader?

However you answer this question, is also the answer to the question you asked. There is no difference.
 
If a soldier is being unfair, or discriminatory to another soldier it will be handled, and dealt with just like any other situation like it. Is it really that hard to understand? LGBT soldiers don't want to be treated any different than any other soldier, they just want to be treated the same, and under DADT they aren't.

And you've still yet to answer my question about if you think that scenario I posted a few posts ago is okay. What are you scared to answer?

Admitting to sodomy is a violation of the UCMJ. Do you want them to be treated just like any other soldier who violates the UCMJ?
 
In the service, the rules are the rules. I've explained this to you in another thread. The rules aren't flexible. When they become flexible, people die.

I'm pretty sure you said that on THIS thread, and I'm pretty sure I agreed with it. It may not have been you I agreed with, but I agree with the concept. You are going after the wrong person.
 
Somehow....I doubt that in aplication Apstd does.....

Moderator's Warning:
Actually it's apdst. While this may be an accident, it has "STD" in it and could be seen as baiting.
 
You are both making an assertion that no one has made (gays can't discriminate) and avoiding the obvious answer. Try this:

What would happen if a male company commander (an officer) and a male platoon leader (an officer) go after a female platoon sargeant (non-commissioned officer), because the platoon sargeant is at odds with the platoon leader?

However you answer this question, is also the answer to the question you asked. There is no difference.

In the Army, there would most definitely be a question of descrimination. It would happen. That's just the way things happen in the real world. In that scenario, the platoon leader and the company commander would need some serious evidence to protect themselves, simply because the platoon sargeant is a female.

Would the company commander and the platoon leader need as much evidence, because the platoon sargeant is a straight soldier? Not even hardly?
 
OK...I know that you are not that dense. Sexual harasment or discrimation claims are handled the same way in every jurisdiction around that country. Why would it be different if a straight soldier was claiming sexual harasment or discrimination against a gay leader?
Like I said....you are really streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching to find an argument here.

Nevermind what happens around the county; they are handled differently in the Army. I spent 12 years in the Army, what the hell do I know. Right?
 
Admitting to sodomy is a violation of the UCMJ. Do you want them to be treated just like any other soldier who violates the UCMJ?

First off saying that one is a homosexual doesn't mean that one is participating in sodomy. Secondly, why the hell is "sodomy" between two consenting adults in the UCMJ. It has no reason to be there, the army has no business in the sexual matters of its soldiers.
 
Nevermind what happens around the county; they are handled differently in the Army. I spent 12 years in the Army, what the hell do I know. Right?

I love people how try to argue that since they did this or that, no one else is entitled to comment on something. Please.....things aren't handled that differently in the army....its not another planet.
 
In the Army, there would most definitely be a question of descrimination. It would happen. That's just the way things happen in the real world. In that scenario, the platoon leader and the company commander would need some serious evidence to protect themselves, simply because the platoon sargeant is a female.

Do you see how that matches to your scenario? I would think the exact same thing would happen.

Would the company commander and the platoon leader need as much evidence, because the platoon sargeant is a straight soldier? Not even hardly?

If the company commander and platoon leader were straight? Probably not. If they were gay? It would be sexual discrimination, same as the example that I gave.
 
Back
Top Bottom