• 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!

Pentagon: Letting openly gay troops serve won't hurt military

Okay, then I think your opinion about PTIF219 opinion being worthless is worthless.

And that's your right. See? Perfectly appropriate.

Of course, my opinion of your opinion of my opinion of ptif219's opinion is that it's worthless.
 
Last edited:
I suspected as much, so here's my question, do you include your own opinion in your assessment at all opinions are worthless or is it only those opinions that disagree with yours? To be honest, CC (can I call you that?), I did think telling ptif219 that his opinion is worthless was kinda crappy (and not very courteous at all).
 
I suspected as much, so here's my question, do you include your own opinion in your assessment at all opinions are worthless or is it only those opinions that disagree with yours? To be honest, CC (can I call you that?), I did think telling ptif219 that his opinion is worthless was kinda crappy (and not very courteous at all).

An opinion presented as fact is worthless, to me. That's what ptif did.

As far as opinions go, their worthiness, to me, is based on their ability to be supported and how they are presented.

But enough about me. Who, may I ask, are you?
 
An opinion presented as fact is worthless, to me. That's what ptif did.

As far as opinions go, their worthiness, to me, is based on their ability to be supported and how they are presented.
Which, of course, would be a matter of opinion. Think back, do you find that opinions that happen to agree with yours are the ones that more readily meet your standards for "worthiness"?

But enough about me. Who, may I ask, are you?
Only your worst nightmare. Just kidding. Is there something specific you want to know?
 
Which, of course, would be a matter of opinion. Think back, do you find that opinions that happen to agree with yours are the ones that more readily meet your standards for "worthiness"?

No. Those that have some factual basis, whether I agree with them or not have more worthiness, to me.

Only your worst nightmare. Just kidding. Is there something specific you want to know?

No, my worst nightmare is an old person driving in front of me. :2razz:

Nothing in particular. Where do you stand on the issue being discussed in this thread?
 
Well there is also "very conservative" people doing the same thing now ;)

Besides I was 15 in 05, and actually thought I would be a conservative when I started to vote, then I started paying attention to things :lol:

It took me a while to grow up and realize that liberalism is a pipe dream that in reality never works.
 
Last edited:
It took me a while to grow up and realize that liberalism is a pipe dream that in reality never works.

No, conservatives don't grow up they just go senile there is a difference. Most conservatives are liberals that have just grown too old, lost their mind, and have difficulty forming logic. It happens, no worries.

As for the DADT, hopefully this is repealed rather quickly given the Pentagon's facts and studies.
 
No. Those that have some factual basis, whether I agree with them or not have more worthiness, to me.



No, my worst nightmare is an old person driving in front of me. :2razz:

Nothing in particular. Where do you stand on the issue being discussed in this thread?
Mine would be being that old person.
 
It took me a while to grow up and realize that liberalism is a pipe dream that in reality never works.

More like when society evolves as the next generation takes over, and they make the changes that they deem necessary they want to keep the world how it is, how they envisioned the future of society. Also older people are less accepting to new ideas, so trying to start change with an older generation is never successful. Trust me, conservative values in 30 years are going to look like liberal values today. Just wait until we are talking about HRM.(Human Robot Marriage :lol:)
 
And the troops are for repeal.

most of the troops don't give a **** one way or the other. so technically they are not "for" the repeal, nor are they against it. they really don't care.
 
You miss the point of the trust factor in combat. I take it you know nothing of military life

I served in the 82nd Airborne. So I know a bit. And there is nothing you've presented that would suggest to me any trust would be violated. Women can still trust a man who asks and she says no to. What is so different about males that they can't do the same? This is what I'd like explained to me. What does it have to do with trust at all?
 
Most conservatives are liberals that have just grown too old, lost their mind, and have difficulty forming logic.

As for the DADT, hopefully this is repealed rather quickly given the Pentagon's facts and studies.

logic?

LOL!

well, aside aristotelian abstractions, here on earth, as has been shown, dadt isn't a lame duck, it's dead, congressionally speaking, that is

as for the courts, obama's doj is APPEALING the california court's ruling against the ban

Justice department appeals judge’s ‘don’t-ask-don’t-tell’ ruling – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

do you remember when holder's homies argued that gay marriage was analagous to incest and having relations with a 16 year old?

Obama Justice Department Defends Defense Of Marriage Act

that's ugliness, not logic

it is what it is, syllogism or no

Obama?s go-slow 'don't ask, don't tell' plan backfires - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

go slow, do it in congress...

but hurry!

LOL!

no wonder larry kramer said what he said

“mr do-nothing obama," he's "really useless in terms of both hiv and gay issues, an exceedingly large disappointment," "how useless he has been," "he is simply not a leader, he may be president but he is not a leader"

On World AIDS Day, Larry Kramer, who first warned of epidemic, rips 'Do-nothing' Obama

sorry

try to stay up
 
Hey look, random links that don't address the topic at all and have been refuted before. Obama has stated, consistently, that the repeal of DADT should come from legislation, not the courts. Damn him for being consistent and wanting to do something the best way...
 
Hey look, random links that don't address the topic at all and have been refuted before. Obama has stated, consistently, that the repeal of DADT should come from legislation, not the courts. Damn him for being consistent and wanting to do something the best way...



Consistent with whom? weren't blacks integrated with an EO?
 
Consistent with whom? weren't blacks integrated with an EO?

Consistent with his own statements. I don't like it, and think he should just end it today, but he is being consistent.
 
Consistent with whom? weren't blacks integrated with an EO?

Obama's position has been consistent. He has said all along that this should be done by the legislative branch, which I agree with. Laws should be made and changed by them.
 
larry kramer: mr do nothing obama, really useless on gay issues, exceedingly large disappointment, simply not a leader

here's why

In 1993, President Bill Clinton nearly derailed his presidency with an early move to end the military’s ban on gay service members. Aides scrambled to craft the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as a compromise to get the politically radioactive issue off the new administration’s back.

President Barack Obama’s aides were intent, above all else, on not repeating that experience when it came to carrying out their campaign promise to open up the military to gays, so they moved cautiously.

The result: Obama now faces his own political crisis over the issue that threatens his support from key Democratic constituencies, undermines his relationship with the Pentagon and puts him in the odd position of defending a practice he has denounced as discriminatory and harmful to national security.

“It’s crazy that all this is happening 2½ weeks before a national election,” said Richard Socarides, an adviser to Clinton on gay issues during the ’93 fiasco. “The timing could not be worse for them, but it was fairly predictable that their strategy of postponing and delaying getting into this stuff was, at some point, going to come back to haunt them.”

The White House’s Plan A involved a Pentagon study for release in December 2010, followed by legislation thereafter. But in May, advocates won the White House’s public support for conditional repeal legislation that attempted to work around the next-Congress problem by giving Obama, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs power to end the policy when the studies were complete.

Even that contingent plan was awkward for the White House, since it upended Obama’s initial agreement with Gates, who faces service chiefs staunchly opposed to repeal. “It started getting real messy,” said one person close to the talks. “The president was in a very tough spot.”

Obama?s go-slow 'don't ask, don't tell' plan backfires - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

why did holder's doj compare gay marriage to incest and sex with 16 year olds?

try to stay up
 
This would be a horrible policy. I guarantee that you would have some people getting out just because they could. Many of those would care less about the policy.

If someone is uncomfortable with a change in military policy that allows gays to serve openly that makes them not want to serve anymore, then they can either wait til their time is up and just not reenlist.

No one joined the military with a quarantee that policies would never change. And no one has joined the military in this day and age without knowing DADT was in place, and that they very well may have to serve with a gay person.

I would agree with all of that, with only one more request which would give hetero service members the option of showering with the opposite sex they are sexually attracted to, in order to have the sames rights as gay people will have, by being openly gay in the military. Universal showers and then we have a deal...
 
I would agree with all of that, with only one more request which would give hetero service members the option of showering with the opposite sex they are sexually attracted to, in order to have the sames rights as gay people will have, by being openly gay in the military. Universal showers and then we have a deal...

Still doesn't work. Gays shower with straights now. Men and women do not shower together now.

The only difference that will come from allowing gays to serve openly will be that, some straights that didn't know about some of the gays that worked with them might now know. The amount of attraction a gay guy has for a straight guy in his unit will not magically change if he is allowed to say he is gay without fear of discharge. The gay guy will not magically physically change into a different gender or start having a monthly cycle. Gay girls will not grow a penis or start having to shave off facial hair (if they didn't have to already).
 
No. Those that have some factual basis, whether I agree with them or not have more worthiness, to me.



No, my worst nightmare is an old person driving in front of me. :2razz:

Nothing in particular. Where do you stand on the issue being discussed in this thread?
I remember when DADT was instituted by the Clinton administration. It a compromise to the full ban on gays serving in the military. Honestly, I think it's a reasonable compromise. What I don't get is that gays claim they just want their private life to remain that way and that they want the government to stay out of their bedrooms. You remember that, right? So why now, when it comes to the military do they seek to trumpet their gayness?
 
I remember when DADT was instituted by the Clinton administration. It a compromise to the full ban on gays serving in the military. Honestly, I think it's a reasonable compromise. What I don't get is that gays claim they just want their private life to remain that way and that they want the government to stay out of their bedrooms. You remember that, right? So why now, when it comes to the military do they seek to trumpet their gayness?

Where are they saying that they want to "trumpet" their gayness? Heterosexuals can state they are heterosexual without being discharged. When they do are they "trumpeting" their straightness?
 
Still doesn't work. Gays shower with straights now. Men and women do not shower together now.

The only difference that will come from allowing gays to serve openly will be that, some straights that didn't know about some of the gays that worked with them might now know. The amount of attraction a gay guy has for a straight guy in his unit will not magically change if he is allowed to say he is gay without fear of discharge. The gay guy will not magically physically change into a different gender or start having a monthly cycle. Gay girls will not grow a penis or start having to shave off facial hair (if they didn't have to already).

It does work, because gays do not shower with straights "right now" as openly gay. Gay people if DADT is repealed will have extra rights, above straights. Why not give straights the same privilege to shower with eachother, if equality is what we are seeking here???
 
Military heads say no.

My Way News - Army, Marine chiefs cast doubt on gay service

The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines say letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.

Their assessment, expected Friday at a Senate hearing, was likely to become political ammunition for Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans fighting to keep Congress from repealing the 1993 law that prohibits gays from acknowledging their sexual orientation. Democrats have promised a vote this month to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law, although its chances of passing this year were considered dim.

"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat," the Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
 
Back
Top Bottom