• 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!

Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

What if 2 different soldiers in the same situation were passing around a bottle of Jack Daniels. Soldiers lives would be in jeopardy. Should the military proactively make any and all drinking grounds for discharge just in case some alcoholic soldiers cannot control themselves in a combat situation?

Very true, mard. We are dealing with adults. Adults who are capable of controlling themselves, and behaving AS adults. There are those who cant in any group, and they need to be weeded out, and removed from the group. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. Maturity and a willingness to follow orders is what is important.

Sorry about the double post..not sure how it happened.
 
No, I'm saying that if gay soldiers are allowed to serve in combat arms units, a problem will come into existance, that currently doesn't exist.

If you were in the Army, you should know that there are many cases, where soldiers are incapable of being adults.

I see no reason why one should. The law is the same. And heterosexuals are not likely to be making out wwith homosexuals. And homosexuals are no more inclined to rape than anyone else, which would also be against the law. And most of the soilders I knew behaved like adults when that was the expectation. When you excuse juvinile behavior, you get what you ask for.
 
not really, they will just have to get over it. like they did when they integrated the service. there were white soldiers that didn't want to billet with black soldiers and vice-versa and we got over that.

As I mentioned earlier the kind of gay person who would want to join the miitary will be the kind of person with the moral character to resist raping his bunkmate. Of course there will be exceptions, but there always are with any situation.

Can you force a female soldier to bunk with a male soldier?
 
I talked about: the 9th Circus doesn't have jurisdiction over military regulations.

You're right, you did say that. And now still nobody has addressed it. Not that it's definitely true; I have a suspicion that it's not. But I don't know. Does anyone have an argument against this?


Does anyone here want to talk about the actual topic? Or is just going to be another DADT should-or-shouldn't-it-be-there of a million?
 
apdst..you are not dealing with different genders. They are still male/female. You cannot compare the two.
 
What if 2 different soldiers in the same situation were passing around a bottle of Jack Daniels. Soldiers lives would be in jeopardy. Should the military proactively make any and all drinking grounds for discharge just in case some alcoholic soldiers cannot control themselves in a combat situation?

actually, drinking alcohol in a combat zone is in direct violation of general order #1 and you can get discharged for violating the order.
 
And, you understand better than I because of your extensive military service. Yes?

So you actually "understand" why it's a court-martial offense to get a blow job from your wife, eh? :lol: You're still not helping to make the military look any less retarded if you say yes. There is NO reasonable basis for the military to forbid soldiers from licking ******s or dicks off duty. None. Unless you can come up with something that the rest of us reasonable folks are unable to think of that doesn't have anything to do with a poster's personal life.
 
Can you force a female soldier to bunk with a male soldier?

no, but I think you should. what the hell...this isn't the freakin middle ages. I personally think if you are going to have a coed service then everyone should ****, shave, shower and sleep together. If you can't act like a fraking responsible adult, then I don't want your immature ass serving with me.
 
no, but I think you should. what the hell...this isn't the freakin middle ages. I personally think if you are going to have a coed service then everyone should ****, shave, shower and sleep together. If you can't act like a fraking responsible adult, then I don't want your immature ass serving with me.

I agree with you on principle, Oscar. Not sure we are ready for that, yet, but I do hope it gets to that point.
 
You're right, you did say that. And now still nobody has addressed it. Not that it's definitely true; I have a suspicion that it's not. But I don't know. Does anyone have an argument against this?


Does anyone here want to talk about the actual topic? Or is just going to be another DADT should-or-shouldn't-it-be-there of a million?

I think in many cases, the 9th circuit court oversteps its bounds. military matters should be left up to the DoD, joint chiefs, CiC and not some liberal court in california
 
actually, drinking alcohol in a combat zone is in direct violation of general order #1 and you can get discharged for violating the order.

For obvious reasons.. my point was that there is no need for a redundant and proactive ban on drinking for the military as a whole when it suffices to have targeted rules for specific situations, so why is this necessary for sexual conduct/orientation?
 
I think in many cases, the 9th circuit court oversteps its bounds. military matters should be left up to the DoD, joint chiefs, CiC and not some liberal court in california
Military courts do not rule on Constitutional issues.
 
Military courts do not rule on Constitutional issues.


The military is a peculiar entity. when you sign that contract you are actually giving up a few of your constitutional rights. there are things that civilians have the right to do that those in the military do not. If people don't like it, they don't have to join. so constitutionality has a slightly different meaning where the military is concerned. that's just the way it is.

I think it is a bad idea to allow a circuit court in california determine what is or is not appropriate for the entire US military. this in spite of the fact that in this particular case I actually agree with them.

a thought has just occurred: I wonder how many homosexuals and their supporters would be lobbying for gays in the military if we were in a WWI, WWII, or vietnam type conflict with hundred of soldiers being killed each day and there was a draft going on? just curious.
 
Last edited:
apdst..you are not dealing with different genders. They are still male/female. You cannot compare the two.

Hmm, I guess I would argue with this, the gender is irrelevant without the sexual component.

So, actually, a gay man bunking with other men is kind of like men/woman bunking together.

I understand both sides of this issue, its certainly not black/white as to which side is wrong.
 
You might have had a point...if this was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Today, your point fails miserably, since the rest of society handles gays with no trouble. It's not social engineering, it's being a part of society.

It almost feels like a certain segment of society just wants their own little island somewhere where there are no <insert class, race, religion, gender bias, etc> to mess with their utopia.
 
I wonder how many soldiers would have stated, or perhaps did not, re-enlist or seek to join the military immediately before and after segregation was ended? Probably a fair number to be concerned, however it happened and in the end it obviously made the military stronger. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen put up with and deal with willingly conditions and situations which no would deny are tough, and from my experience people in those situation quickly forget about the stuff that doesn't really matter. And what your fellow soldier doesn't in his private time is one of those things. I can't think of a single instance in American history where making the military both more inclusive and egalitarian has harmed it.

Take into consideration that Mark Bingham, who was one of the leaders of the attempted takeover of United 93 on 9/11, was an openly gay man. However he clearly showed all the qualities necessary to being a good soldier, but would have never been allowed to join the service. Should a person of that quality be denied a chance to serve his country in the military if he wanted?

And lets also remember that only military has a DADT policy, or any kind of special consideration of gay individuals. One could be gay and join the CIA, FBI, police forces, be elected to any public office, or literally do anything that anyone here would consider "service to one's country" but they can't be in the military because soldiers might not like it? Bull****. If Americans literally everywhere can "put up" with a gay person as a co-worker, colleague, or anywhere else in their life than soldiers, who are these same Americans, can to.

If we had a "post of the day" here, I'd nominate this one.
 
And that's another thing - Private Life.

I couldn't say the Army was very private. And homosexuality being what it is, I'm not surprised soldiers would at the very least feel very uncomfortable at the idea of Pte. Privates wittering on about his man ***** off base.

As long as you do your job and don't make waves, certainly. But making a big bloody performance out of it by indulging in gay marches and the like? Blows that right of the water.



What's more, there have been disgusting cases regarding STRAIGHT servicemen and other public servants being FORCED to indulge the gay love-in and being punished for refusing.

British Forces at the 2008 Gay Pride March in London « Marquesate’s Camouflage Men: Military Gay Erotic Fiction

Pop mogul-turned-pastor pledges cash to help firemen in gay row - Times Online

There's no choice any more - you have to do the gay lobby's bidding else you're for it!



And as for the hypocritical leftist cry of 'if you don't like it then GTFO'? I don't hear them saying that to the likes of the extremist or pushy Muslims!

The gay lobby? WTF?! Seriously? GLBT are humans with every right inherent to humans, constitution or no.
 
Hmm, I guess I would argue with this, the gender is irrelevant without the sexual component.

So, actually, a gay man bunking with other men is kind of like men/woman bunking together.

not really, since gay men are typically not attracted to heterosexual men. If I know a fellow soldier is gay and he knows that I am not, he will be no more likely to attempt a relationnship with me than a straight guy.

To suggest that gay and straight men cannot share the same billets underestimates the character of the american soldier.
 
If the assumption is that every single gay soldier is a sex crazed maniac that'll rape the other soldiers...

Just because there are 2 gay people in a unit, does not mean they will automatically fuck...

The rules of liking someone still apply...

Isn't this the same argument for why women shouldn't be serving in the armed forces?
 
not really, since gay men are typically not attracted to heterosexual men. If I know a fellow soldier is gay and he knows that I am not, he will be no more likely to attempt a relationnship with me than a straight guy.

To suggest that gay and straight men cannot share the same billets underestimates the character of the american soldier.

I don't know what gay experiences you have had, but I can personally attest to gay men being attracted to me (hetero) on multiple occasions. Attraction doesn't start/stop based on a checklist.

I'm attracted to lesbians, so conversely I would also point out that idea is false.
 
You guys aren't seeing the big picture. Getting a blow job - at ANY time - is detrimental to the safety of the soldiers everywhere. And unit cohesion. And stuffs. A tongue touching a dick will cause soldiers and puppies to die. Why do you hate the soldiers so much?

<helpful> You forgot that it makes baby jeebuz cry.
 
Isn't this the same argument for why women shouldn't be serving in the armed forces?

No because gender is a proven genetic trait unlike homosexuality.
 
I don't know what gay experiences you have had, but I can personally attest to gay men being attracted to me (hetero) on multiple occasions. Attraction doesn't start/stop based on a checklist.

I'm attracted to lesbians, so conversely I would also point out that idea is false.


see the more important part of my statement. If he knows I am straight and not interested he is not going to waste his time by attempting to "seduce" me. and therefore I have no reason to fear him being billeted with me.
 
Last edited:
No because gender is a proven genetic trait unlike homosexuality.

What is it today, nobody can stay on topic??

The point being made that I'm responding to - work off of that. NOTHING to do with whether gays are born <cough> they are </cough>. Has to do with the argument given as to why they shouldn't be allowed to serve side-by-side.
 
Back
Top Bottom