• 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

The Prof said:
then you haven't been watching the news

only 5 days remaining for the dem majority, unless you think harry's gonna hold em over for christmas for this

good luck
Click to expand...
I hope not.

I don't want to worry about politicians getting up to no good when I'm trying to celebrate Christmas...
 
roguenuke said:
And it shouldn't have been asked. Would you ask the military "Do you want to go to war?" or would you ask them "What problems do you anticipate if we go to war, at this time, with this country, concerning your particular job/role?" The servicemembers are generally very knowledgeable in their own fields. They can tell you specific about what they have worked with and what has and hasn't worked in those areas.

Since most of the people, especially in the Marine Corps, admitted to not having worked/lived with someone who is gay, then how would they know how they would really react to working with one? And there is no proof that having openly gay servicemembers affects unit morale, discipline or cohesion, so they must be basing their answers off fears and assumptions.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the subject........when you sign up for the military you sign up to go to war if need be......You don't sign up to serve openly with gays........
 
Navy Pride said:
Where do you think the word Sodom came from? duh
Click to expand...

you mean sodomy, you left off the Y....
We had a young man on board ship in Vietnam who was openly effiminate, but not gay, so he said. He had an opera cape made in Hong Kong, and was prancing around in it aboard ship. A real screwball, but denied being gay.
I can think of 2 others who might have been gay, one on a submarine, and one in Norfolk.
But nobody seemed to care much.
 
Navy Pride said:
Nothing to do with the subject........when you sign up for the military you sign up to go to war if need be......You don't sign up to serve openly with gays........
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the subject.......when you sign up for the military you sign up to go to war if need be.....You don't sign up to serve openly with atheists/jews/muslims/blacks/latinos/insert-minority-here.
 
Navy Pride said:
Where do you think the word Sodom came from? duh
Click to expand...

Somebody like you misinterpreting what the story of the destruction of Sodom in the Bible was all about.

I own two Bibles currently, and neither says that God was planning on destroying Sodom because of homosexuality. The reason that God gives for planning to destroy Sodom in the first place is because the people turned against him (which means that they were/became Pagans). And if you are only basing it on the townsmen raping/trying to rape the angels, there are a couple of flaws in this as well. First of all, in many stories about angels, they don't even have genders. Second, it was quite common for Pagans in that time to believe that if they had sexual relations with magical entities (i.e. angels) that they would gain the powers of those entities. Since it is highly illogical for anyone to believe that all the men of that town were gay, since the town obviously had generations of people living in it and gay men cannot reproduce amongst themselves, then it is much more logical to assume that the men in Sodom were all trying to gain some of the angels' powers for themselves. And finally, saying that the townsmen must be gay because they were planning to rape men and that is why God destroyed Sodom (ignoring completely the fact that God never said anything about planning to destroy Sodom or any other town for that matter because of the sexuality of anyone in those towns, and that He was planning on destroying Sodom all along, which is why the angels were there in the first place) is like trying to make a case that if a rapist rapes or attempts to rape a redheaded woman once, then he must prefer redheads, whether the sex is consensual or forced, even if it is shown that the woman he raped was his boss or someone else in authority over him (and most people know that rape is about power, not attraction). In both cases, it is very likely that the perpetrators would have attempted to rape whoever they viewed as being more powerful than them. Unless you somehow believe that if it had been angels that appeared to be women, instead of men, that those same townsmen wouldn't have raped or attempted to rape those women just because of their apparent gender?
 
Navy Pride said:
Nothing to do with the subject........when you sign up for the military you sign up to go to war if need be......You don't sign up to serve openly with gays........
Click to expand...

No one should be signing up for the military with the preconceived notion that some things in the military won't change while they are in. Every military member is expected to show enough discipline to not allow their personal feelings interfere with their ability to do their job, which is to fight or support a war. And if anyone is currently signing up actually believing that they will never have to serve alongside a gay person, then they are deluding themselves. Especially with the way the rule is written about who decides whether to even start an investigation into someone's sexuality. An individual cannot start an investigation into the sexuality of another servicemember on their own, so if there was someone who was openly gay in their unit, and the chain of command chose not to do anything, then they would have to suck it up and live with that person anyway. A person can testify all they want that they heard someone say that they were gay, but unless their is an investigation open into the matter, authorized by the CO, then that homophobe is clear out of luck (and yes, anyone who would turn someone in just for saying they're gay without any misconduct on the gay person's side, is a homophobe, since they are doing so out of fear that the homosexual person might do something).
 
You people do realize that Navy's argument has nothing to do with the military or defense no?

It's merely a cover for his homophobia. Navy would have us kick out linguistic specialists who are gay. The same people we badly need to decode terrorist chatter to prevent new attacks.

The bad for defense argument is just hiding his dislike of gays who he has come out and argued are nothing more then animals who cannot control themselves despite the thousands who do so every day defending his freedom with their lives.
Click to expand...

That post needed to be repeated.

Navy's opposition to gays in the military has nothing to do with the military. Navy's opposition to gays is because Navy doesn't like gays. He's just too immature to come out and say it.
 
IIRC, NavyPride was a ships serviceman in the navy for a long time, and it could be that he had to work for a time with some people whose "orientation" was questionable. I only did 12 years active duty and met 3 that I thought might be playing for the other side or both sides at the same time. They did thier jobs, tho, and never hit on me. Of course, there were plenty of good looking guys to hit on, nearly all prettier than me.:2razz:
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm bigoted against my own race? Yeeeeeeah. Good luck with that one Rev. You say some some pretty stupid stuff when it comes down to facts.

Racial Disparities Found in Pinpointing Mental Illness - washingtonpost.com
Is Schizophrenia Really a Black Disease? | Going Mental | Big Think
Racial inequality in the American criminal justice system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://cte.rockhurst.edu/s/945/imag...NT PAPERS(Listed Alphabetically by P/rest.pdf
Click to expand...




I wouldn't even dream of trying to figure out how your mind works.


Your links suck. :shrug:
 
SirPwn4lot said:
Nothing to do with the subject.......when you sign up for the military you sign up to go to war if need be.....You don't sign up to serve openly with atheists/jews/muslims/blacks/latinos/insert-minority-here.
Click to expand...

There you go same old bull****..........You know all those individuals are serving so you do sign up to serve with them You don't sign up to serve with gays serving openly....
 
I don't mind being shot at, but please don't make me eat, sleep, and shower in the same vicinity as homosexuals!
 
Navy Pride said:
There you go same old bull****..........You know all those individuals are serving so you do sign up to serve with them You don't sign up to serve with gays serving openly....
Click to expand...

Except that with DADT in place, everyone knows that they could be signing up to serve with people who are gay. And with the current rules, it is even possible that you could have to just deal with serving alongside someone who is openly gay. A CO only has to open an investigation into a person being gay if there is some actual legal proof that a person is gay. Someone can announce that they are gay in berthing, but if the CO doesn't care or want to open an investigation, than anyone uncomfortable with the openly gay person will have to suck it up.
 
roguenuke said:
No one should be signing up for the military with the preconceived notion that some things in the military won't change while they are in. Every military member is expected to show enough discipline to not allow their personal feelings interfere with their ability to do their job, which is to fight or support a war. And if anyone is currently signing up actually believing that they will never have to serve alongside a gay person, then they are deluding themselves. Especially with the way the rule is written about who decides whether to even start an investigation into someone's sexuality. An individual cannot start an investigation into the sexuality of another servicemember on their own, so if there was someone who was openly gay in their unit, and the chain of command chose not to do anything, then they would have to suck it up and live with that person anyway. A person can testify all they want that they heard someone say that they were gay, but unless their is an investigation open into the matter, authorized by the CO, then that homophobe is clear out of luck (and yes, anyone who would turn someone in just for saying they're gay without any misconduct on the gay person's side, is a homophobe, since they are doing so out of fear that the homosexual person might do something).
Click to expand...

I can honestly say if when I joined the Navy anf gays were allowed to serve openly I would not have joined........If DADT is revoked you will see a lot of senior POs and Chiefs who will leave the service at their first opportunity.....
 
Navy Pride said:
I can honestly say if when I joined the Navy anf gays were allowed to serve openly I would not have joined........If DADT is revoked you will see a lot of senior POs and Chiefs who will leave the service at their first opportunity.....
Click to expand...

Okay, let them go. People much more tolerant and more professional will take their place. (Although, I honestly doubt that too many would really give up a good job and good retirement in this economy. It would be a very poor decision.)

Don't worry, I know very few nukes who would get out over this, senior or not. So at least one undermanned job will not lose a lot of people. And if some senior MAs get out over this, then it means more openings for my husband and other junior sailors to get promoted and less worry for us over him being forced out from PTS.
 
roguenuke said:
Except that with DADT in place, everyone knows that they could be signing up to serve with people who are gay. And with the current rules, it is even possible that you could have to just deal with serving alongside someone who is openly gay. A CO only has to open an investigation into a person being gay if there is some actual legal proof that a person is gay. Someone can announce that they are gay in berthing, but if the CO doesn't care or want to open an investigation, than anyone uncomfortable with the openly gay person will have to suck it up.
Click to expand...

That is true and it has not been a problem.......Serving with openly gay men is a whole different ball game........As a woman in the service it would not eveen affect you........
 
Navy Pride said:
That is true and it has not been a problem.......Serving with openly gay men is a whole different ball game........As a woman in the service it would not eveen affect you........
Click to expand...

Except there are men who have served with openly gay men as well. How many times do I have to tell you this NP? I served with openly gay men. There were men in my department who everyone knew were gay. There was no problem with this, from the men or the women in my department.

Besides, do you honestly think that there are no women who are uncomfortable serving with homosexual women? I know that this not true. My berthing was turned in for being gay by other women who were uncomfortable with it. We were talked to about not being so comfortable with each other in our berthing lounge to try to not offend some of the supply girls (most said that they thought the whole thing was stupid) and we had to take down the calendar that one of the girls had hung to purposely tick off those girls who felt "uncomfortable". We had openly gay girls in our berthing, but there wasn't actually an investigation opened because our command wasn't so much concerned about if any of us were actually gay as they were with trying to maintain peace without any getting charged with sexual harassment.
 
Navy Pride said:
I can honestly say if when I joined the Navy anf gays were allowed to serve openly I would not have joined........If DADT is revoked you will see a lot of senior POs and Chiefs who will leave the service at their first opportunity.....
Click to expand...

Good. They obviously aren't professional enough to wear the uniform.
 
Navy Pride said:
That is true and it has not been a problem.......Serving with openly gay men is a whole different ball game........As a woman in the service it would not eveen affect you........
Click to expand...

Because women can't be gay? :confused:
 
Navy Pride said:
I can honestly say if when I joined the Navy anf gays were allowed to serve openly I would not have joined........If DADT is revoked you will see a lot of senior POs and Chiefs who will leave the service at their first opportunity.....
Click to expand...

Only if they have their 20 years in, even goat locker residents are smart enough to hang in there until they can retire..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom