• 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

I still doubt that id you're in a combat situation that the one thing on your mind will be if the bloke in front of you has a nice arse.

Think deeper (or at least honestly). Before combat, units must be cohesive and they must train in order to work as one mind. This is not something that you can simply flip a switch on and expect roads of gold. You will not find a more alpha male society than the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Embracing the homosexual in the Fire Team will take time and much friction. All of this has to happen before they get into combat.
 
I think your underestimating the amount of sex straight people can have.

No way! Not compared to gay men at least. I'm sure there is data out there, but meh, I don't really care. It just makes sense though right? Put my brain into "attracted to men" mode, with other men thinking the same way .... I would get laid 10-20 times a weekend.

I'm friends with a gay man, he tells me stories .... Lets just say that gay men (who frequent gay bars) are living the dream. [other than the man on man part lol]
 
That is correct. Do you understand why females aren't allowed to serve in combat arms units? It is to prevent fratrnization among the soldiers of that unit, which would probably cause a breakdown in discipline.

I am pretty sure that is not the rationale used. I believe it has more to do with not wanting women in combat than worrying about fraternization. I am sure you will have no problem backing up that statement though.
 
No way! Not compared to gay men at least. I'm sure there is data out there, but meh, I don't really care. It just makes sense though right? Put my brain into "attracted to men" mode, with other men thinking the same way .... I would get laid 10-20 times a weekend.

I'm friends with a gay man, he tells me stories .... Lets just say that gay men (who frequent gay bars) are living the dream. [other than the man on man part lol]

Actually, it doesn't make sense.

Here's a hint, we girls like sex just as much as guys. :shock:
Shocking I know, but it's true.
 
Think deeper (or at least honestly). Before combat, units must be cohesive and they must train in order to work as one mind. This is not something that you can simply flip a switch on and expect roads of gold. You will not find a more alpha male society than the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Embracing the homosexual in the Fire Team will take time and much friction. All of this has to happen before they get into combat.

The part I bolded made me laugh.

As you yourself have in a way pointed out before, gays who choose to serve in the army and in particular the marines will be very much that alpha male type. You are not going to see some limp wristed femme gay wanting to serve in the army or marines, nor would they succeed. Further, it's not expected they "embrace" gays, only tolerate and work with. The full esprit de corpes will come in short order after that.
 
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.

You were foolish enough to try and compare homosexuality to gender. I simply proved your comparison false. If you want to yell at people to stay on topic, try looking in the mirror.
 
Why are people even debating this?

The issue is settled. Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin, a character flaw, a mental disorder, an addiction, etc. and whether you believe that gays will be a distraction in the military, that this is an act of "social engineering", etc., it doesn't change the one fact that matters.

DADT was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The military cannot infringe upon our basic Constitutional rights whether we are gay or straight. The military exists to protect our Constitutional rights, as well as to protect us from foreign threats.
 
Why are people even debating this?

The issue is settled. Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin, a character flaw, a mental disorder, an addiction, etc. and whether you believe that gays will be a distraction in the military, that this is an act of "social engineering", etc., it doesn't change the one fact that matters.

DADT was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The military cannot infringe upon our basic Constitutional rights whether we are gay or straight. The military exists to protect our Constitutional rights, as well as to protect us from foreign threats.

lol Because one judge says so? Ever heard of appeals?

Scream and rant all you like. There is a process to follow.
 
Wrong again.

"Gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female. It can extend from sex to social role or gender identity. As a word, "gender" has more than one valid definition. In ordinary speech, it is used interchangeably with "sex" to denote the condition of being male or female. In the social sciences, however, it refers specifically to socially constructed and institutionalized differences such as gender roles. The World Health Organization (WHO), for example, uses "gender" to refer to "the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women"."

Life is a little more complicated than "right and wrong" tex.
 
Last edited:
You do know gays have already been serving, right?

Get over it. If they're willing to serve and possibly risk their lives if needed they shouldn't be punished for their consensual relationships.

The military has way too much control over service members on their off time not even counting this and is why so many people get out.

Get over it.

No matter what measures are taken, or how many new laws are enacted, prejudice cannot be squelched. If daddy or your peers were prejudiced, you'll be prejudiced too.

ricksfolly
 
lol Because one judge says so? Ever heard of appeals?

Scream and rant all you like. There is a process to follow.

An appeal simply means finding fault with the judge's ruling. I haven't heard a convincing argument from you that suggests that the judge was wrong and that DADT is constitutional.
 
No matter what measures are taken, or how many new laws are enacted, prejudice cannot be squelched. If daddy or your peers were prejudiced, you'll be prejudiced too.

ricksfolly

I agree that we will never get rid of prejudice, but the bolded statement holds no truth.
 
The part I bolded made me laugh.

As you yourself have in a way pointed out before, gays who choose to serve in the army and in particular the marines will be very much that alpha male type. You are not going to see some limp wristed femme gay wanting to serve in the army or Marines, nor would they succeed. Further, it's not expected they "embrace" gays, only tolerate and work with. The full esprit de corpes will come in short order after that.

Oh they have to "embrace." We have to care about each other, because we are all we have over there. The close proximity of living and training very much move units towards building personal trusts and companionships, first at the individual level and then the unit level. The "gay alpha male" is something I even have a hard time picturing, but they won't be the problem. The problem will be those who have spent their entire lives learning a certain thing about gays and are now told to turn on a dime.

This is an American social prescription and problem. Only recently have gays been celebrated in the media, television, and hollywood. Mid 90s back, gays were the source of ridicule and jokes. They were the AIDS creators. They were God's abominations. But now? California decides that they have no right to marry, yet must serve openly in the military out of consitutional awareness? This is a civilian problem and they seek to use the military to force our entire civilization beyond it. This is not new (as you know I've stated before).
 
"Gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female. It can extend from sex to social role or gender identity. As a word, "gender" has more than one valid definition. In ordinary speech, it is used interchangeably with "sex" to denote the condition of being male or female. In the social sciences, however, it refers specifically to socially constructed and institutionalized differences such as gender roles. The World Health Organization (WHO), for example, uses "gender" to refer to "the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women"."

Life is a little more complicated than "right and wrong" tex.


Read the definition again Critical. What I said was 100% correct.

Unless you are going to argue the dictionary is lying when it defines what gender is you have no basis to claim it is incorrect.

Your attempts to argue against the very definition of the word because some organization defines it another way is not a convincing argument.

Face facts. The dictionary version is what we go by. Not an interpretation by some organization.
 
Last edited:
An appeal simply means finding fault with the judge's ruling. I haven't heard a convincing argument from you that suggests that the judge was wrong and that DADT is constitutional.

Oh well as long as you aren't convinced :lamo
 
Read the definition again Critical. What I said was 100% correct.

What you aaid was a single vernacular definition. I was using the social science definition. Neither of us was 100% right.
 
Oh they have to "embrace." We have to care about each other, because we are all we have over there. The close proximity of living and training very much move units towards building personal trusts and companionships, first at the individual level and then the unit level. The "gay alpha male" is something I even have a hard time picturing, but they won't be the problem. The problem will be those who have spent their entire lives learning a certain thing about gays and are now told to turn on a dime.

This is an American social prescription and problem. Only recently have gays been celebrated in the media, television, and hollywood. Mid 90s back, gays were the source of ridicule and jokes. They were the AIDS creators. They were God's abominations. But now? California decides that they have no right to marry, yet must serve openly in the military out of consitutional awareness? This is a civilian problem and they seek to use the military to force our entire civilization beyond it. This is not new (as you know I've stated before).

It will most likely not make it's full course through the courts, as it is scheduled to be up for repeal early next year after the DOD gets done with it's yearlong review.

I don't think any one is saying it there won't be some issues when the change happens, but I do not believe they will be big or unsolvable issues. The rest of society manages to deal with gays now, and I have no doubt that the military can handle it as well, and probably quite well. I got a lot of confidence in you guys.
 
Why are people even debating this?

The issue is settled. Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin, a character flaw, a mental disorder, an addiction, etc. and whether you believe that gays will be a distraction in the military, that this is an act of "social engineering", etc., it doesn't change the one fact that matters.

DADT was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The military cannot infringe upon our basic Constitutional rights whether we are gay or straight. The military exists to protect our Constitutional rights, as well as to protect us from foreign threats.

But California can? A state that determined that gay marriage was not a right dares decide that they know what is best for the military and now seeks to lead the gay voice to utopia? I would venture a guess that none of this panel has ever served, but wants the military to lead the way for civilians once again. Blame the military all you want for keeping gays down, but its civilians that have their heads up their asses. From women to blacks, the military has proven to lead the way. I guess they are going to use the military to once again enforce what civilians cannot. Perhaps you should look at this differently. In the end, its the military that's going to be your social hero.
 
Last edited:
What you aaid was a single vernacular definition. I was using the social science definition. Neither of us was 100% right.

LOL No you weren't. You used an interpretation by another organization.

I don't know what planet you have been living on but here we define words by how the dictionary defines them, not some group's interpretation.
 
But California can? A state that determined that gay marriage was not a right dares decide that they know what is best for the military and now seeks to lead the gay voice to utopia? I would venture a guess that none of this panel has ever served, but wants the military to lead the way for civilians once again. Blame the military all you want for keeping gays down, but its civilians that have their heads up their asses. From women toblacks, the military has proven to lead the way. I guess they are going to use the military to once again enforce what civilians cannot.
The Ninth Circuit is a federal court, not a state court.
 
I don't think any one is saying it there won't be some issues when the change happens.......

Well, be honest. You are one of the few (if not the only) "very liberal" members who have thought beyond the bumper sticker slogans. Most seem upset that the military has refused to use its secret magic wand to make all their socially gay intolerances go away.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom