• 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' repeal fails in Senate

Yeah, I knew when I used the word "valid" it would illicit a response like this. The thing is, whether troop morale would be affected for "valid" reasons or not is not as important an issue as whether it would be affected at all. The military is different than other jobs. I don't live with my coworkers (much to their relief I'm sure).

The military was the only "job" I ever had as an adult. I did live with my coworkers, once for more than 9 months on a carrier. A couple of the women I lived with were openly gay. I know exactly what it is like to have openly gay personnel in my department. We did not allow anyone in our department to openly practice intolerance or discrimination. My department officers fought hard to try to keep in two guys that were put out under DADT, because we were already shorthanded (as always) and they were really good workers.
 
And many of those straight troops have no problem with gay troops serving openly, especially those who have already served with gay troops that they knew were gay. Therefore, those straight troops who are uncomfortable with gay troops serving openly are in a minority, not the majority. Those uncomfortable with gay troops need to get over it.
So, if a gay soldier "hit on" a straight soldier, the straight soldier should just be expected to "get over it"? That's a lot to ask.
 
So, if a gay soldier "hit on" a straight soldier, the straight soldier should just be expected to "get over it"? That's a lot to ask.

Yet you ask it of women all the time.

It's the ultimate chauvinism. Guys hit on women all the time, but getting HIT ON? **** NO MAN THATS ****ED UP!!!!

:roll:
 
Last edited:
So, if a gay soldier "hit on" a straight soldier, the straight soldier should just be expected to "get over it"? That's a lot to ask.


They should take it through the chain of command and if that doesn't work take it to the military lawyers.
 
Last edited:
They should take through the chain of command and if that doesn't work take it to the military lawyers.

Or they should just ignore it like just about every waitress who's number I've tried to get.
 
They should take it through the chain of command and if that doesn't work take it to the military lawyers.
To do what? Wouldn't disciplining the gay soldier be "intolerant"?
 
Yet you ask it of women all the time.

It's the ultimate chauvinism. Guys hit on women all the time, but getting HIT ON? **** NO MAN THATS ****ED UP!!!!

:roll:
I don't know too many guys who who are offended by being hit on by women. I also don't know too many dudes who just take getting hit on by another dude in stride.
 
The problem with a presidental order is they can be overturned (likely one reason he hasn't).

Then let the next president overturn it. Obama is just a coward,trying to see if the water is too hot or too cold so that he does not politically jeopardize his or his fellow democrat's political careers. The fact another president may or may not overturn it is irrelevant.
 
I don't know too many guys who who are offended by being hit on by women. I also don't know too many dudes who just take getting hit on by another dude in stride.

I don't get upset if a dude hits on me, but if an unattractive female hits on me I beat her senseless. :roll:
 
I don't know too many guys who who are offended by being hit on by women. I also don't know too many dudes who just take getting hit on by another dude in stride.

Yes, thank you, that's exactly my point. You get pissed off if a guy hits on you, but yet you hitting on women is just something women should have to deal with.
 
Yes, thank you, that's exactly my point. You get pissed off if a guy hits on you, but yet you hitting on women is just something women should have to deal with.
I promise, I won't hold it against a woman if she gets pissed off by being hit on by another woman. The crux here is not people getting hit on, it's being hit on my people of the same gender. Is it too much to ask that, at minimum, our military not have to deal with that? They have enough to worry about.
 
I promise, I won't hold it against a woman if she gets pissed off by being hit on by another woman. The crux here is not people getting hit on, it's being hit on my people of the same gender. Is it too much to ask that, at minimum, our military not have to deal with that? They have enough to worry about.

Why should men have to deal with being hit on by women? Why should women have to deal with men hitting on them?

I don't see how unwanted sexual advances are any worse then they're done by someone of the same sex.

Also, I take it that you want DADT changed to allow gay soldiers to openly serve, but restrict them from "hitting" on their comrades. Whatever tickles your fancy.
 
I promise, I won't hold it against a woman if she gets pissed off by being hit on by another woman. The crux here is not people getting hit on, it's being hit on my people of the same gender. Is it too much to ask that, at minimum, our military not have to deal with that? They have enough to worry about.

There are already rules on fraternization that deal with that issue. Trying to keep DADT in place to stop that situation from happening is redundant.
 
To do what? Wouldn't disciplining the gay soldier be "intolerant"?

Not if he was asked not to proposition others who have already told him no. Asking a person out multiple times after being told no is sexual harassment in the military. Everyone is taught this.
 
Not if he was asked not to proposition others who have already told him no. Asking a person out multiple times after being told no is sexual harassment in the military. Everyone is taught this.
So how many times is enough for someone to be allowed to complain without being branded homophobic? "Multiple" would suggest at least three. What if the advances are physical in nature, rather than just "propositioning"?
 
Why should men have to deal with being hit on by women? Why should women have to deal with men hitting on them?

I don't see how unwanted sexual advances are any worse then they're done by someone of the same sex.
Many people have religious and moral objections to homosexuality. Fewer people think heterosexuality is morally wrong.
 
Many people have religious and moral objections to homosexuality. Fewer people think heterosexuality is morally wrong.

Morality and religiosity are two entirely different things regardless of the religious' slanderous to the contrary. I know a hell of a lot people who claim religion that don't have a moral bone in their bodies, like lots of public politicians who like paiges and diapers and cheating on their dying wives. Contrarily I know atheists that are exceptionally moral.

Surely you aren't so ignorant as to be stuck in this trap are you?
 
So how many times is enough for someone to be allowed to complain without being branded homophobic? "Multiple" would suggest at least three. What if the advances are physical in nature, rather than just "propositioning"?

Reprimanding a gay person for sexual harassing someone isn't being homophobic. It is treating us the same, and that is all we want.
 
Reprimanding a gay person for sexual harassing someone isn't being homophobic. It is treating us the same, and that is all we want.

Exactly. Sexual harrassment is sexual harrassment regardless of the genders involved. I think what it is that bothers folks like those above is that men in our society are not accustomed to being the object of sexual harrassment, and desire to remain in the position of being able to harrass (generally women) without the possibility that it could happen back to them (by men). They like their exclusive position of givers and rarely receivers. Also I notice that of those I know, men that are most concerned with this phantom sexual harrassment they fear they might receive if homosexuals are fairly and fully recognized anywhere, are the ones who are the most harrassing to women.

Kind of like theives are the ones most concerned with being robbed because they fear everyone is like they are.
 
Many people have religious and moral objections to homosexuality. Fewer people think heterosexuality is morally wrong.

I'm sure there's a significant number of soldiers who think Islam is morally wrong, does that mean we should kick all Muslims out of the military? I was hesitant in making this point because you probably do want them kicked out :/ Oh well.
 
Back
Top Bottom