• 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:
The KKK is officially listed as a terrorist orginization? Since when?
Click to expand...

Lol. Since 1870 at the very least.

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization".[46] It issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism. Klan members were prosecuted, and many fled from areas that were under federal government jurisdiction, particularly in South Carolina.[47] Many people not formally inducted into the Klan had used the Klan's costume for anonymity, to hide their identities when carrying out acts of violence. Forrest ordered the Klan to disband in 1869, stating that it was "being perverted from its original honorable and patriotic purposes, becoming injurious instead of subservient to the public peace".[48] Historian Stanley Horn writes "generally speaking, the Klan's end was more in the form of spotty, slow, and gradual disintegration than a formal and decisive disbandment".[49] A reporter in Georgia wrote in January 1870, "A true statement of the case is not that the Ku Klux are an organized band of licensed criminals, but that men who commit crimes call themselves Ku Klux".[50]
Click to expand...

Your true allegiances are showing.

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

Sure they do, just as Al-Qaeda members in the U.S. can create a website and shutting it down would be a violation of their rights as guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. The minute they overstep what is possible within a constitutional framework they can no longer exist. The KKK can't advocate lynching blacks. They can't advocate killing Jews. They can't do any of the **** their "constitutional rights" would allow them if one were to be as ignorant as you of constitutional law.

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...

Yes, yes. That's exactly it. I support making every single soldier into a pink wearing, Sir Elton John loving member of the Village People.
 
Hatuey said:
Lol. Since 1870 at the very least.

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Your true allegiances are showing.



Sure they do, just as Al-Qaeda members in the U.S. can create a website and shutting it down would be a violation of their rights as guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. The minute they overstep what is possible within a constitutional framework they can no longer exist. The KKK can't advocate lynching blacks. They can't advocate killing Jews. They can't do any of the **** their "constitutional rights" would allow them if one were to be as ignorant as you of constitutional law.



Yes, yes. That's exactly it. I support making every single soldier into a pink wearing, Sir Elton John loving member of the Village People.
Click to expand...

So, in short, you're OK with any constitutionally protected group serving, openly, in the United States Military and support their right to do so 100%?

BTW, what are my, "true allegiances"? Is this another, "white masters", comment?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Is it illegal to be a member of the Crips, Bloods, of the Panthers? It isn't. Huh?
Click to expand...

It's not illegal to join a criminal gang. All criminal actions which one must engage in as a result of being in a gang however are. It's not illegal to join the Crips. It's illegal to commit a crime in order to join an organization. Do you know how kids join the Crips? ;)
 
apdst said:
So, in short, you're OK with any constitutionally protected group serving, openly, in the United States Military and support their right to do so 100%?
Click to expand...

No, he's saying you have no idea what the constitution does and does not protect.

Joining the KKK is a right. It's also a conscious choice that bars you from military service. You made the choice.

Homosexuality is not a choice, so homosexuals should be judged as individuals.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
So, in short, you're OK with any constitutionally protected group serving, openly, in the United States Military and support their right to do so 100%?
Click to expand...

All memberships are constitutionally protected. Being a terrorist or criminal is not. So what are we discussing? Whether gays, criminals and terrorists are all the same? Because legally, theoretically and realistically they're not even close to being the same.
 
Deuce said:
No, he's saying you have no idea what the constitution does and does not protect.

Joining the KKK is a right. It's also a conscious choice that bars you from military service. You made the choice.

Homosexuality is not a choice, so homosexuals should be judged as individuals.
Click to expand...

Educate me! Last time I checked, the Constitution protected membership in the KKK, Nazis, Black Panthers and the Crips. Obviously, it doesn't protect any illegal activity, but it does protect simply being a member.

Do you support the constitutional right of servicemen simply being members of these kind of groups? If not, then you know what you are.

Simply being a member of these kinds groups doesn't make one a criminal. Or, does it?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
All memberships are constitutionally protected. Being a terrorist or criminal is not. So what are we discussing? Whether gays, criminals and terrorists are all the same? Because legally, theoretically and realistically they're not even close to being the same.
Click to expand...

That's not at all what we're discussing. We're discussing constitutional rights.
 
apdst said:
So, in short, you're OK with any constitutionally protected group serving, openly, in the United States Military and support their right to do so 100%?

BTW, what are my, "true allegiances"? Is this another, "white masters", comment?
Click to expand...

Well no. It's another 'you're a homophobic ignoramus who doesn't have the first clue what the constitution actually protects and doesn't protect' comment.
 
apdst said:
That's not at all what we're discussing. We're discussing constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Where is the constitutional right to serve in the military?
 
Hatuey said:
Well no. It's another 'you're a homophobic ignoramus who doesn't have the first clue what the constitution actually protects and doesn't protect' comment.
Click to expand...


Your argument is crap, so you resort to name calling?

Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's what I thought!
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Where is the constitutional right to serve in the military?
Click to expand...

This, again?!? :rofl

Do you understand how that question totally kills the your argument against DADT??

Gays don't have the constitutional right to serve in the military????

Hillarious!!!!
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
That's not at all what we're discussing. We're discussing constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

So then we're discussing whether they're the same among other things?

The answer is no. They're not. They're not constitutionally or legally the same.

Your next question would be: Do you have the right to join the KKK and be a member of the military?

Well you have the right to join the KKK. Use of this right means your forfeit your ability join the military but only because the KKK, you know, is an organization which is guilty of domestic terrorism. That shows a serious conflict of interest if your job is to protect the country. The same goes for anyone who joins a criminal organization and yet pretends they are going to 'protect' our country.

Why are they not the same?

Well for one, there is no illegal activity one must pursue in order to be gay. Sodomy has been outlawed for well over 50 years in most places. The same goes for homosexuality itself (they're not the same). Legally, there is no way any kind of law enforcement could get warrants to wiretap somebody simply because they are gay. The same same can't be said for being a member of the Latin Kings. Being a member of such organization is sufficient enough for law enforcement to look into your person.
 
Hatuey said:
So then we're discussing whether they're the same among other things?

The answer is no. They're not. They're not constitutionally or legally the same.

Your next question would be: Do you have the right to join the KKK and be a member of the military?

Well you have the right to join the KKK. Use of this right means your forfeit your ability join the military but only because the KKK, you know, is an organization which is guilty of domestic terrorism. That shows a serious conflict of interest if your job is to protect the country. The same goes for anyone who joins a criminal organization and yet pretends they are going to 'protect' our country.

Why are they not the same?

Well for one, there is no illegal activity one must pursue in order to be gay. Sodomy has been outlawed for well over 50 years in most places. The same goes for homosexuality itself (they're not the same). Legally, there is no way any kind of law enforcement could get warrants to wiretap somebody simply because they are gay. The same same can't be said for being a member of the Latin Kings. Being a member of such organization is sufficient enough for law enforcement to look into your person.
Click to expand...

What's constitutionally protected from one, is constitutionally protected for the other.

Since membership in the KKK is protected by the Consitution, as is gays serving openly in the military, you have no choice but to support the rights of service members to be members of the KKK, Nazis, Skin Heads, Black Panthers, etc.

BTW, sodomy is still a crime in the military. So, yes, there is illegal activity to be pursued, by being gay.

I'm not condoning, nor condemning either one, either way. I'm only going by the logic set forth by your side of the argument. Why aren't you?
 
apdst said:
What's constitutionally protected from one, is constitutionally protected for the other.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. The Federal Government(you know, the people who sign paychecks for the military) can't constitutionally discriminate against anyone because of their sexuality. They can however discriminate against anyone who is a member of a criminal and terrorist organization.

Since membership in the KKK is protected by the Consitution, as is gays serving openly in the military, you have no choice but to support the rights of service members to be members of the KKK, Nazis, Skin Heads, Black Panthers, etc.
Click to expand...

As being gay does not mean one necessarily engages in any criminal OR terrorist activity, then they are not equally protected. Being a member of such groups is optional. Being gay is not. Seriously, are your parents home? Because I find it necessary that you understand this simply notion about what the Constitution does and doesn't do.

BTW, sodomy is still a crime in the military. So, yes, there is illegal activity to be pursued, by being gay.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. However sodomy refers to the act of penal penetration into the anus. Not a homosexual act itself. How come we don't see straights being kicked out because they may or may not engage in sodomy outside of work?

I'm not condoning, nor condemning either one, either way. I'm only going by the logic set forth by your side of the argument. Why aren't you?
Click to expand...

That is called a strawman. My side of the argument is that there is no statistical or quantitative evidence that the military would be affected by gays openly serving. The qualitative evidence is at the very least flimsy and at worst simply serves as anecdotal bigotry. Nothing more, nothing less.

Face it apdst. It's been a huge failure to try and compare being a criminal or a terrorist to being gay. The reason those people are not allowed in is because they have to do something which is illegal in order to be a member. A person can be gay and not have relations. That essentially means they are not guilty of sodomy within the military or outside. And even if they had sex, what then? How is that enough of a reason to kick them out if straights engage in the same activities? The question here is not that gays should be allowed to serve because constitutionally their rights are protected just as yours or mine would be. The question is whether we should discriminate against gays because of the beliefs of some soldiers. The answer is no. Why? Because unit cohesion is nothing more than a bull**** tag line you're using as a way to justify your bigotry. That's it. Just admit it and accept you don't want a guy who sucks **** serving next to you because you're afraid that he won't be able to control himself. Never you mind that he might already be next to you and you may not even know it. ;)
 
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...

Well unemployment was at 5.5 percent and toe DOW was at and all time high to name a couple of things that you liberal buddies have screwed up./......
 
Hatuey said:
Sure it is. The Federal Government(you know, the people who sign paychecks for the military) can't constitutionally discriminate against anyone because of their sexuality. They can however discriminate against anyone who is a member of a criminal and terrorist organization.



As being gay does not mean one necessarily engages in any criminal OR terrorist activity, then they are not equally protected. Being a member of such groups is optional. Being gay is not. Seriously, are your parents home? Because I find it necessary that you understand this simply notion about what the Constitution does and doesn't do.



Sure it is. However sodomy refers to the act of penal penetration into the anus. Not a homosexual act itself. How come we don't see straights being kicked out because they may or may not engage in sodomy outside of work?



That is called a strawman. My side of the argument is that there is no statistical or quantitative evidence that the military would be affected by gays openly serving. The qualitative evidence is at the very least flimsy and at worst simply serves as anecdotal bigotry. Nothing more, nothing less.

Face it apdst. It's been a huge failure to try and compare being a criminal or a terrorist to being gay. The reason those people are not allowed in is because they have to do something which is illegal in order to be a member. A person can be gay and not have relations. That essentially means they are not guilty of sodomy within the military or outside. And even if they had sex, what then? How is that enough of a reason to kick them out if straights engage in the same activities? The question here is not that gays should be allowed to serve because constitutionally their rights are protected just as yours or mine would be. The question is whether we should discriminate against gays because of the beliefs of some soldiers. The answer is no. Why? Because unit cohesion is nothing more than a bull**** tag line you're using as a way to justify your bigotry. That's it. Just admit it and accept you don't want a guy who sucks **** serving next to you because you're afraid that he won't be able to control himself. Never you mind that he might already be next to you and you may not even know it. ;)
Click to expand...

Obviously, because you've never spent a single day in the military. In my time, I saw more straights prosecuted under Article 124, than gays.

Your ignorance of how the United States military works shows, everytime you post on the subject.

Your ignorance of my opinion on gays serving in the military shows, even more.
 
apdst said:
Obviously, because you've never spent a single day in the military. In my time, I saw more straights prosecuted under Article 124, than gays.

Your ignorance of how the United States military works shows, everytime you post on the subject.

Your ignorance of my opinion on gays serving in the military shows, even more.
Click to expand...

You mean article 125, and the vast majority of cases of sodomy are not prosecuted even if the command knows of them.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well unemployment was at 5.5 percent and toe DOW was at and all time high to name a couple of things that you liberal buddies have screwed up./......
Click to expand...

Actually if you want to talk about unemployement, most of the jobs that have been lost were lost before Obama had the chance to change even one policy.
 
CriticalThought said:
Actually if you want to talk about unemployement, most of the jobs that have been lost were lost before Obama had the chance to change even one policy.
Click to expand...

THey have been losing jobs since the dems took over 8n 2006...........
 
Redress said:
You mean article 125, and the vast majority of cases of sodomy are not prosecuted even if the command knows of them.
Click to expand...

I've seen several prosecuted. All of them were straight soldiers; males with females.
 
Navy Pride said:
THey have been losing jobs since the dems took over 8n 2006...........
Click to expand...

Nice try Navy...but it was your "Great and inspired world leader" and your Republican party that created this mess.....don't blame the Democrats because they haven't been able to clean it up fast enough.
 
apdst said:
I've seen several prosecuted. All of them were straight soldiers; males with females.
Click to expand...

I did not say that it was not used, only that it is not heavily enforced.
 
Redress said:
I did not say that it was not used, only that it is not heavily enforced.
Click to expand...

Again, I never saw a gay soldier prosecuted under Article 125, only straight soldiers. Never said anything about heavy enforcement.
 
apdst said:
Obviously, because you've never spent a single day in the military. In my time, I saw more straights prosecuted under Article 124, than gays.

Your ignorance of how the United States military works shows, everytime you post on the subject.

Your ignorance of my opinion on gays serving in the military shows, even more.
Click to expand...

Translation:

- False authority argument
- You don't know.
- You don't know.

You know, if you want to compare gays to criminals and terrorists why not just say so? Instead of pretending they're the same thing constitutionally. Which they are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom