• 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!

Poll: Most US troops OK with gays in the military

Redress said:
Gays men are not women and gay women are not men. This is a large, unsubtle distinction.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Gay men are men. And men are such sexual animals that we don't allow them to shower with the objects of their sexual attraction. So why should we have different rules for gay men than straight men? Or are you suggesting there is some reason aside from sexuality that we separate men from women?
 
rudygetsplenty said:
LOL of course America is tired of liberals. They've been in charge for a full 2 years, and the country isn't perfect yet. So now, the general mass of sheep that comprise the majority of this country are lloking to the grass on the other side, convinced it's greener. In a few years, when the right has failed to fix things, they'll swing back the other day. BTW, what a laugh for a Republican to throw out the words "intolerance" and "hypocrisy"; the right wing in the last 2 years have become so partisan (not to mention completely indifferent to the truth) that it borders on treason.
Click to expand...

Liberals have actually been in charge for 4 years since they took over the congress amd things have been going to hell in a handbasket since .....
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Liberals have actually been in charge for 4 years since they took over the congress amd things have been going to hell in a handbasket since .....
Click to expand...

LOL yeah, because we were doing so great before they took over what with 2 unwinnable wars being waged, a record deficit, indeed an economy so screwed by mismanagement that it threw us into a second depression.
 
rudygetsplenty said:
Question for you, it seems you're in favor of gays in the military. I'm trying to have a debate with a thinking liberal regarding this; I tried starting my own post but didn't get many bites, the only one I did avoided (probably unintentionally) the actual question and gave generic reasons why gays should be allowed to serve.
How can we not view allowing gays to serve as special treatment? You mention that soldiers aer OK with gays showering and bunking with them, which is fine and dandy. However, we do not allow straight soldiers to bunk or shower with members of the opposite sex, i.e. the objects of their sexual attraction. Why, then, would it be ok to allow gays to do so?
Click to expand...

Redress already beat me to it...but let me just add this in addition. Gay men and women are already in the military...they are already living with, sleeping next to and showering with their straight counterparts. The only thing that getting rid of DADT does is that it promotes honesty.
 
Navy Pride said:
Liberals have actually been in charge for 4 years since they took over the congress amd things have been going to hell in a handbasket since .....
Click to expand...

I don't think you can say liberals were in charge when Bush held the pen. Let's be intellectually honest here, it was 2 years. And as I recall, we were pulled out of one of the worst recessions in American history in those two years. I think the liberals deserve some credit.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I don't think you can say liberals were in charge when Bush held the pen. Let's be intellectually honest here, it was 2 years. And as I recall, we were pulled out of one of the worst recessions in American history in those two years. I think the liberals deserve some credit.
Click to expand...
Really what type of credit? Doubling the national deficit trying to create jobs that never materialized? How about bailing out big business (btw I thought the libs hated big business but unions were involved so I understand why the liberals would come running)? How about the small businessman refusing to add jobs or expand their operations because of the fear the dems were going to and promised to do so, raise their taxes?

BTW, didn't the libs call Bush a lame duck after the 2006 elections because he could no longer get anything he wanted passed through congress because it was controlled by the libs? Funny what short memories some people have.
 
disneydude said:
Redress already beat me to it...but let me just add this in addition. Gay men and women are already in the military...they are already living with, sleeping next to and showering with their straight counterparts. The only thing that getting rid of DADT does is that it promotes honesty.
Click to expand...

If gays are already serving in the military, then why all the whining about them being banned?
 
apdst said:
If gays are already serving in the military, then why all the whining about them being banned?
Click to expand...

Its about honesty. The current policy allows gays to serve as long as they lie. The new policy allows people to be honest. What value do you support? Deceit or honesty?

I was always taught the latter. Perhaps you were taught different values.
 
apdst said:
If gays are already serving in the military, then why all the whining about them being banned?
Click to expand...

Straw man. The issue is not with gays being banned. They are not. The issue is that gays have to hide being gay and are treated differently than every one else.
 
Redress said:
Straw man. The issue is not with gays being banned. They are not. The issue is that gays have to hide being gay and are treated differently than every one else.
Click to expand...

I guess, by that logic, the ban on Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and Latin Kings should be lifted. Yes?

Just in the interest of honesty. I mean, it's un-constitutional for a member of the military to be banned, because he/she is associated with a racial hate group, or a street gang. Right?

If you're going to do it, go all the way. Support a court decision that says a member of the KKK can freely associate with the personel in his/her unit, without being treated differently Don't be a ****ing hypocrite!
 
Last edited:
So, an overwhelming majority of Americans support allowing homosexuals to serve openly, and now a majority of military personnel are ok with it.

Why are we even still debating this?
 
chevydriver1123 said:
I didnt ****ing know that! Im not in the military, I would think such a ban would be considered unconstiutional.
Click to expand...

technically, it is. So, if the ban on gays is such an abomination, so should the ban on membership of an extemist group.

Why, do you ask?

Because it falls under Article 134 of the UCMJ, which states:

“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”
Click to expand...

I'm bettin' we won't see too many Libbos making a stand on that one!
 
Deuce said:
So, an overwhelming majority of Americans support allowing homosexuals to serve openly, and now a majority of military personnel are ok with it.

Why are we even still debating this?
Click to expand...

If a majority of service members were ok with open membership to the KKK, etc., would you show as much support?

It's their right, under the Constitution, afterall.
 
apdst said:
I guess, by that logic, the ban on Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and Latin Kings should be lifted. Yes?

Just in the interest of honesty. I mean, it's un-constitutional for a member of the military to be banned, because he/she is associated with a racial hate group, or a street gang. Right?

If you're going to do it, go all the way. Support a court decision that says a member of the KKK can freely associate with the personel in his/her unit, without being treated differently Don't be a ****ing hypocrite!
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously terrorist associations, criminal gangs and fascists are the same as homos. Are you that retardedly homophobic?
 
apdst said:
If a majority of service members were ok with open membership to the KKK, etc., would you show as much support?

It's their right, under the Constitution, afterall.
Click to expand...

Why are you equating homosexuals to hate groups and criminals?
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, obviously terrorist associations, criminal gangs and fascists are the same as homos. Are you that retardedly homophobic?
Click to expand...

So, you agree that those bans should be lifted, as well? I mean, afterall, those memberships are Constitutionally protected, outside of the service.

It's all about constitutionality. Right? Or, does constitutionality begin and end with your political beliefs?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
If a majority of service members were ok with open membership to the KKK, etc., would you show as much support?

It's their right, under the Constitution, afterall.
Click to expand...

I didn't know I was comparable to the KKK. Damn, just damn.
 
Deuce said:
Why are you equating homosexuals to hate groups and criminals?
Click to expand...

Because, don't you know? Logic follows that if we let guys that **** guys join the military then we must do the same with guys who shoot innocent bystanders, lynch people and control prostitution rings. Logically of course.
 
Deuce said:
Why are you equating homosexuals to hate groups and criminals?
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm pointing out how those memberships are consitutionally protected in the civilian world, but not in the military world.

You do support those constitutional rights?

All we've heard since the 9th Circus made it's ruling is that it's all about constitutionality. Well? Are you going to continue to be a supreme hypocrite? Or, are you going to turn to the Constituion when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't?
 
apdst said:
So, you agree that those bans should be lifted, as well? I mean, afterall, those memberships are Constitutionally protected, outside of the service.

It's all about constitutionality. Right? Or, does constitutionality begin and end with your political beliefs?
Click to expand...

Your lack of actual constitutional knowledge is appalling. Being a member of the KKK is constitutionally protected. The many other actions that come with being a KKK member are not. Being a Christian is constitutionally protected. Stoning women because they are prostitutes and your beliefs say you have to stone them is not. So sure, if you want to join the military and are a KKK member of good standing(hah!) ? Why the hell not? Just know that this:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is going to make it really hard for your career to ever take off.
 
apdst said:
Do your constitutional rights outweigh anyone else's?
Click to expand...

The constitutional rights of a single gay individual outweigh the homophobic demands of the populace. She has the right to be gay and you have the right to ignore it and **** off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom