• 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!

'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal in doubt

apdst said:
Exactly, which is why DADT needs to remain in place and the ban on gays be lifted. What will change, with the repeal of DADT, is now, unit leaders will be able to disharge a soldier on the slightest suspicion of homosexual activity, no matter how unfounded. At least, now, there is a regulation that protects gay soldiers. Without DADT, gay soldiers would have ZERO protections. But hey, go for it, see how it works out for you.

The anti-DADT folks are so ignorant of how the military works, that they're going to do more harm than good, with the abolition of DADT.
Click to expand...

You'd think if that were true that the gays in the military would be fighting tooth and nail to keep DADT. And yet, it's the opposite. I guess those in the military are ignorant of how the military works.

You'd also think that all the anti-gay homophobes would be chomping at the bit to repeal DADT. And yet, it's the opposite. I guess those in the military - like Navy - are ignorant of how the military works.

:roll:

The repeal of DADT is just the first step. It will facilitate the repeal of the ban on gays in the military altogether.
 
OscarB63 said:
If I do will you guys shut the **** up about it?

US CODE TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654
Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.




CASE F*CKING CLOSED. if you repeal DADT without ammending US Code 10 gays will not be allowed to serve in the military under ANY circumstances.
Click to expand...


In this case, that is what DADT is referring to. The Murphy Amendment is what was added to the bill that didn't pass the Senate here. It would actually have repealed that code, not just DADT. Most people commonly use DADT only in reference to that Code.

http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/052810d1.pdf
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't know what kind of guys you engage in sex with but I myself do not engage in those activities....I find them diagusting and repulsive.................I treat my partner like a queen and put her on a pedestal...You have been with the wrong kind of guys honey.....I see where all your hate for men comes from now...............
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, oral sex is just horrid. I cannot BELIEVE that men actually accosted me in such a manner. :lol:
 
disneydude said:
Works for me....not sure how it is done though....
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a judge in CA that could rule US CODE TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 unconstitutional, just as easily as they did DADT.

That is why I think the whole thing is a do nothing, warm and fuzzy, scam to pander to gays and gay supporters for votes. They could just as easily ruled against something that would actually make a ****ing difference and they chose not to. Either that or they are just stupid as hell.
 
disneydude said:
So since you are not gay....why do you start so many anti-gay threads Navy?... The people that pis me off are the homophobes who are not gay and will never be gay that run their mouths.....Hell you can say anything it does not affect you.......you have no clue what goes on in the gay world..........
Click to expand...

I told you DD I will not respond to your personal attacks anymore...I am debating the people here that have a point to make and I don't have time for your nonsense.............You can keep attacking but you won't get a response...............Have a nice evening.............
 
rivrrat said:
Yeah I know, oral sex is just horrid. I cannot BELIEVE that men actually accosted me in such a manner. :lol:
Click to expand...

I see the error of my ways. Looks like I owe some women an apology for my terrible, terrible behavior.
 
Kandahar said:
No. If I said "he served badly 100 years ago," that would be attacking his service. But since I have no idea how well he served, I'm content to just attack him for being an angry, out-of-touch oldtimer.
Click to expand...

No, you're insulting him.



So they can serve as long as they adhere to your ridiculous restrictions that don't apply to heterosexuals. How generous of you. :roll:
Click to expand...

Who said it wouldn't apply to heteros?



Yep. I'm for equal civil rights for everyone, and that makes ME small-minded and ignorant.
Click to expand...

Your approach to allowing gays to serve in the military, will only further inhibit their ability to do so. Keep thinking broad minded.
 
OscarB63 said:
well, "technically" I suppose homosexuals can serve as long as they don't engage in homosexual activity or demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
Click to expand...

Question for you..If two men are walking down the pier and are holding hands and kiss before boarding the ship....would you consider that gay activity?
 
Navy Pride said:
Question for you..If two men are walking down the pier and are holding hands and kiss before boarding the ship....would you consider that gay activity?
Click to expand...

No. In many cultures this would not be considered unusual, especially if they were family members.

Now, if they were like making out, then sure, why not. They're probably gay. Would that ruin your morale?
 
disneydude said:
This is always the lamest argument the anti-gay folk make. That would be like me saying....unless you are gay then you shouldn't be allowed to comment on any issue relating to gays.....see how silly that argument is now?
Click to expand...

Not nearly as stupid as the pro gay crowd when they scream "discrimination" or "bigot" but never really stop to think what those words actually mean.
 
Homosexuals are serving and have served for a long time...so what? I care about the mission, if it's getting done and done right, who cares what they do after work?
 
rivrrat said:
ROFLMFAO

Yeah, NO gays served prior to DADT. :rofl
Click to expand...

really??? really??? care to actually get the point instead of always trying to be a smart ass?

they were prohibited (****ing happy now?)from serving prior to DADT. if they got caught they got kicked out. how ****ing hard is it to understand such a ****ing simple concept?

Do you honestly think anyone believes that there weren't any gays in the military prior to DADT? you would get much better response and your opinion would get much more respect if you weren't so damn condescending all the ****ing time.
 
Navy Pride said:
There are some veterans in here that disagree with me and I respect their opinion.......The people that pis me off are the liberals who have never served and never intend to serve that run their mouth.......Hell they can say anything it does not affect them..........they have no clue what goes on in the military............
Click to expand...
You keep saying nobody has a clue except you, especially liberals. But wasn't it the liberals who insisted the troops get the body armor they needed and the armored humvees and medical care for the vets? And wasn't it the liberals who insisted the coffins coming home get shown to the public so they have some sense of the sacrifice our troops were making? I'm sorry, but you blaming liberals for all your petty little problems is offensive to me, especially considering almost 1/3 of my labor out of every year goes to pay for ingrates like you who think they aren't accountable to civilians like me. And just so you know, I'm not completely clueless, my father was a Colonel in the USAF and my husband currently works on F-16s up at HAFB and neither of them have a problem with letting Gays serve in the military. Why? Because they are secure with their own manhood, thats why. My father was also under the impression that when he fought in Korea he was fighting for every American's right to be free and equal, not just a few narrow minded exceptionalists. He believed that to his dying day and now conservatives like you are trying to say he's wrong? So if you didn't serve or fight for every Americans' rights, then who the hell did you fight and/or serve for?
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
really??? really??? care to actually get the point instead of always trying to be a smart ass?

they were prohibited (****ing happy now?)from serving prior to DADT. if they got caught they got kicked out. how ****ing hard is it to understand such a ****ing simple concept?
Click to expand...
Soo... same as now. THAT is my point.
 
texmaster said:
Practicing homosexuals couldn't. Why are you having so much trouble with basic facts?
Click to expand...
Isnt homosexuality supposed to be 'natural'? How do you practice it?
 
The whole point of DADT was that the military was not suppose to go out of its way to investigate whether or not you are gay. That is the whole, "Don't Ask" part. The military has failed to follow up on its end of the deal considering that vindictive soldiers outing people as gay, people seeing a same sex marriage certificate through a window, and searching private e-mails has become the standard by which the military can kick people out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom