• 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

apdst said:
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?
Click to expand...

I couldn't find the right to serve in the military in the constitution.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly! And the military has an outright ban on such membership. Are you ready for the military to lift that ban? Simple question.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, you support the right of a service member to serve as an open member of the KKK?
 
apdst said:
Exactly! And the military has an outright ban on such membership. Are you ready for the military to lift that ban? Simple question.
Click to expand...

Lifting the ban on LGBT Americans is not the same on lifting a ban on KKK members. Plain, and simple.
 
Your Star said:
Lifting the ban on LGBT Americans is not the same on lifting a ban on KKK members. Plain, and simple.
Click to expand...

Why not? Just because? Because it doesn't jive with your agenda? What?
 
apdst said:
Why not? Just because? Because it doesn't jive with your agenda? What?
Click to expand...

Because that could actually cause a problem for the military, especially black soldiers.
 
apdst said:
And??????????????????????????
Click to expand...

And what? By joining the KKK, you have made a conscious choice to join a group founded on hatred and intolerance. You've made a choice to be no loner eligible for military service. And good riddance, such people will only be counterproductive to America's goals and security.

Homosexuals are not comparable in any way. Your argument is about three or four fallacies so far.
 
apdst said:
Why not? Just because? Because it doesn't jive with your agenda? What?
Click to expand...

Because gay people don't have 'lynching' as an extracurricular activity.
 
Your Star said:
Because that could actually cause a problem for the military, especially black soldiers.
Click to expand...

Oh, well!!! Tough ****!! If they don't like it, the they can get their asses out.

That's what we've been hearing from the DADT abolitionists. Am I right?

There's also a ban on membership in the Black Panthers. So, that may, "cause a problem", with white soldiers, too?

Is, "unit cohesion", starting to take a whole new meaning for you, now?

Or, do you support the things you agree with, claiming their, "Constitutional Rights", and after that the Constitution is just a, "godamned piece of paper"?
 
Hatuey said:
Because gay people don't have 'lynching' as an extracurricular activity.
Click to expand...

Black Panthers are banned from the military, too. The Panthers, "lynched", people? How's about the Crips? They're banned, as well.
 
Deuce said:
And what? By joining the KKK, you have made a conscious choice to join a group founded on hatred and intolerance. You've made a choice to be no loner eligible for military service. And good riddance, such people will only be counterproductive to America's goals and security.

Homosexuals are not comparable in any way. Your argument is about three or four fallacies so far.
Click to expand...

The same thing could be said for people who want to be openly gay. There's absolutely no need for a person's sexuality to be an issue in the military. It's totally irrelevant to that soldier's service.

If a person's sexuality is a mission requirement, I would love for you to explain to me how so. I can't wait.


You've made a choice to be no loner eligible for military service. And good riddance, such people will only be counterproductive to America's goals and security.
Click to expand...

There are folks that say the same thing about gays. By your logic, the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Oh, well!!! Tough ****!! If they don't like it, the they can get their asses out.

That's what we've been hearing from the DADT abolitionists. Am I right?

There's also a ban on membership in the Black Panthers. So, that may, "cause a problem", with white soldiers, too?

Is, "unit cohesion", starting to take a whole new meaning for you, now?

Or, do you support the things you agree with, claiming their, "Constitutional Rights", and after that the Constitution is just a, "godamned piece of paper"?
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about? Being a member of the KKK while in the military is banned because it's still listed as a terrorist organization. The same goes for the Black Panthers. The Neo-Nazis and Latin Kings are banned because they are a clearly criminal organization. The connection you are making between being gay and being a criminal or a member of an organization deemed to have engaged in domestic terrorism is a 'giganticolous' fail. Their membership is not what is in question, it is what one had to do in order to become a member of such organizations. That goes for the KKK, Neo-Nazis and Latin Kings. The Black Panthers were banned because of members who decided it was alright to kill police officers. No, no. Your arguments are bull****.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Oh, well!!! Tough ****!! If they don't like it, the they can get their asses out.

That's what we've been hearing from the DADT abolitionists. Am I right?

There's also a ban on membership in the Black Panthers. So, that may, "cause a problem", with white soldiers, too?

Is, "unit cohesion", starting to take a whole new meaning for you, now?

Or, do you support the things you agree with, claiming their, "Constitutional Rights", and after that the Constitution is just a, "godamned piece of paper"?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a group which seeks to violently overthrow the US government as well as kill or forcibly expel a large group of American citizens. And a group who want nothing other than to be allowed to serve in the US military openly.

Believe it or not no one has the right to be a bigot. If you have a problem serving with white or black soldiers, the army says get out. And soon enough if you have a problem with gay soldiers the army going to say get out. Seriously we faced this EXACT same issue when segregation was ended in the Army and look what happened, NOTHING. This current issue is even MORE tame because everyone knows if someone is black, its much harder to tell if someone is gay and everyone knows they are already serving.
 
apdst said:
The same thing could be said for people who want to be openly gay. There's absolutely no need for a person's sexuality to be an issue in the military. It's totally irrelevant to that soldier's service.

If a person's sexuality is a mission requirement, I would love for you to explain to me how so. I can't wait.
Click to expand...

The problem is that a person's sexuality only seems to be an issue when it is a gay soldier. Not when it is a straight. Nobody bats an eye at a soldier who declares he's married to a woman. The same comment would mean expulsion for a gay soldier. Please stop this?
 
apdst said:
The same thing could be said for people who want to be openly gay. There's absolutely no need for a person's sexuality to be an issue in the military. It's totally irrelevant to that soldier's service.

If a person's sexuality is a mission requirement, I would love for you to explain to me how so. I can't wait.

Its not about mission accomplishment is about their individual lives and how they can live them. You don't need to have a wife to be a good soldier so why should the Army let ANYONE marry by your logic?

And tell me where in the Constitution it allows for DADT, good luck.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Oh, well!!! Tough ****!! If they don't like it, the they can get their asses out.

That's what we've been hearing from the DADT abolitionists. Am I right?

There's also a ban on membership in the Black Panthers. So, that may, "cause a problem", with white soldiers, too?

Is, "unit cohesion", starting to take a whole new meaning for you, now?

Or, do you support the things you agree with, claiming their, "Constitutional Rights", and after that the Constitution is just a, "godamned piece of paper"?
Click to expand...

Here's the difference, with the groups you just talked about, they would be bringing in the hate, and the problems. Now with LGBT soldiers, the argument is that homophobic soldiers would have a problem with it, but in that scenario the homophobic soldiers are the problem, not the LGBT soldiers.
 
Hatuey said:
What in the hell are you talking about? Being a member of the KKK while in the military is banned because it's still listed as a terrorist organization. The same goes for the Black Panthers. The Neo-Nazis and Latin Kings are banned because they are a clearly criminal organization. The connection your are making between being gay and being a criminal or a member of an organization deemed to have engaged in domestic terrorism is a 'giganticolous' fail. Their membership is not what is in question, it is what one had to do in order to become a member of such organizations. That goes for the KKK, Neo-Nazis and Latin Kings. The Black Panthers were banned because of members who decided it was alright to kill police officers. No, no. Your arguments are bull****.
Click to expand...

The KKK is officially listed as a terrorist orginization? Since when?

As far as I know, the KKK has a constitutional right to exist, along with the Nazis and the Skin Heads.

Obviously, you support the rights of some--as long as they fall inline with your politics--and **** on the constitutional rights of others.
 
Your Star said:
Here's the difference, with the groups you just talked about, they would be bringing in the hate, and the problems. Now with LGBT soldiers, the argument is that homophobic soldiers would have a problem with it, but in that scenario the homophobic soldiers are the problem, not the LGBT soldiers.
Click to expand...

There is no difference. What is constitutional for one, is constitutional for everyone else.

You don't get to have it both ways. Sorry!
 
apdst said:
Black Panthers are banned from the military, too. The Panthers, "lynched", people? How's about the Crips? They're banned, as well.
Click to expand...

No some Panther members decided to start killing police officers. And Crips? What about them? Drug dealers, pimps and cop killers. What exatcly are we arguing here? Why they're banned?
 
apdst said:
The KKK is officially listed as a terrorist orginization? Since when?

As far as I know, the KKK has a constitutional right to exist, along with the Nazis and the Skin Heads.

Obviously, you support the rights of some--as long as they fall inline with your politics--and **** on the constitutional rights of others.
Click to expand...

Where's your Constitutional right to not serve with others you don't like? GO AHEAD AND FIND IT.
 
Wiseone said:
apdst said:
The same thing could be said for people who want to be openly gay. There's absolutely no need for a person's sexuality to be an issue in the military. It's totally irrelevant to that soldier's service.

If a person's sexuality is a mission requirement, I would love for you to explain to me how so. I can't wait.

Its not about mission accomplishment is about their individual lives and how they can live them. You don't need to have a wife to be a good soldier so why should the Army let ANYONE marry by your logic?

And tell me where in the Constitution it allows for DADT, good luck.
Click to expand...

There's where you're wrong. Everything revolves around mission accomplishment, in the miltiary. Even Redress will tell you that.

And tell me where in the Constitution it allows for DADT, good luck.
Click to expand...


Show us in the Constitution where service members can't be a member of any constitutionally protected group. best of luck!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
No some Panther members decided to start killing police officers. And Crips? What about them? Drug dealers, pimps and cop killers. What exatcly are we arguing here? Why they're banned?
Click to expand...

Is it illegal to be a member of the Crips, Bloods, of the Panthers? It isn't. Huh?
 
Wiseone said:
Where's your Constitutional right to not serve with others you don't like? GO AHEAD AND FIND IT.
Click to expand...

That makes zero sense. You know that; don't you?
 
apdst said:
That makes zero sense. You know that; don't you?
Click to expand...

Like I said before, criminals and racists made a choice to join groups who promote hatred and violence.

Homosexuals didn't. Kinda like how black people didn't choose to be black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom