• 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

Navy Pride said:
There is a law in effect that says they don't have to serve with openly gays...........
Click to expand...

Actually no Navy, there is not. There is a law on the books that says if a gay person tells the military they are gay they will be discharged. A gay person can be flaming gay and not violate that law now.
 
apdst said:
It's a bad thing, when it comes to DADT abolition being mostly agenda driven.

I don't think it's, "special protection", it's a device put in place to allow gays to serve, without fear of being kicked out, or witch hunted.

Why not just enlist, do your job and shutup?
Click to expand...

Well, if you didn't reply to my irrelevant closing statement and instead focused on the rest of the post, you would have your answer.
 
Strange, there used to be hundreds of straws lying around here, now most of them are gone...
 
Kelzie said:
They can wear their dress blues in public still. I don't know about the charlies and alphas.
Click to expand...

Well...good. We never could wear dungarees offbase, about time Marines started having to deal with it too. :twisted:
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
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?
Click to expand...

The sins of Sodom were not just sexual, but included many sins that we as a people are very, very guilty of today.....

From Ezekiel 16:49-50 (English Standard Version)

"....49Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride,(A) excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and(B) did an abomination before me. So(C) I removed them, when I saw it...."
 
Navy Pride said:
I can speak for myself and I can honestly say if Gays could serve openly when I enlisted I would not have done it..........Sure you can change laws but when they directly affect people serving as is the case here the changes should be made I suggested.............
Click to expand...

This is why people call you a bigot.
 
Redress said:
Why not allow people to serve with the same rules for everyone?
Click to expand...

Why not leave safegaurds in place, so as to make this an easier transition? Seems like common sense to me. If DADT were left in place, redefined so that it applied to everyone--to protect gay and straight soldiers alike--then the rules would apply to everyone.

I still don't think this is going to have a happy ending, since DADT is being lifted and not the ban on gays. I think you're all in for a real shock, but I reckon we'll see.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Why not leave safegaurds in place, so as to make this an easier transition? Seems like common sense to me. If DADT were left in place, redefined so that it applied to everyone--to protect gay and straight soldiers alike--then the rules would apply to everyone.

I still don't think this is going to have a happy ending, since DADT is being lifted and not the ban on gays. I think you're all in for a real shock, but I reckon we'll see.
Click to expand...

protect gay and striaght soliders from what? Am I missing something? Just curious.
 
Boo Radley said:
protect gay and striaght soliders from what? Am I missing something? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Knowing who their buddies sleep with.

It's terrifying information, believe me.
 
Boo Radley said:
protect gay and striaght soliders from what? Am I missing something? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Discrimination.

Look at it like this; if I'm wrong, then no harm was done. If you're wrong, it could get ugly. If it gets ugly, it will have a negative impact on morale discipline and unit cohesion.

Ever been a member of a unit that serious morale, discipline and unit cohesion problems? I have and it's not pretty. Not the kind of unit that you want to go to the battlefield with.
 
apdst said:
Discrimination.

Look at it like this; if I'm wrong, then no harm was done. If you're wrong, it could get ugly. If it gets ugly, it will have a negative impact on morale discipline and unit cohesion.

Ever been a member of a unit that serious morale, discipline and unit cohesion problems? I have and it's not pretty. Not the kind of unit that you want to go to the battlefield with.
Click to expand...

DADT does not, in any way, protect gays from discrimination. In fact, it discriminates against gays in that it gives them extra rules they have to follow that straits do not. You are entirely wrong in describing DADT as protecting gays, just as you are wrong about the repeal bill not removing the ban on gays.
 
apdst said:
Discrimination.

Look at it like this; if I'm wrong, then no harm was done. If you're wrong, it could get ugly. If it gets ugly, it will have a negative impact on morale discipline and unit cohesion.

Ever been a member of a unit that serious morale, discipline and unit cohesion problems? I have and it's not pretty. Not the kind of unit that you want to go to the battlefield with.
Click to expand...

that is a great point, what happens if proponents of the repeal are wrong? That is the problem with liberals on every issue, they never look at the possibility or consequences of being wrong on any issue and as you pointed out this could get ugly.
 
Redress said:
DADT does not, in any way, protect gays from discrimination.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, it does. It allows gay to serve in the military. It prevents them from being asked, if they're gay.

In fact, it discriminates against gays in that it gives them extra rules they have to follow that straits do not. You are entirely wrong in describing DADT as protecting gays, just as you are wrong about the repeal bill not removing the ban on gays.
Click to expand...

A total ban on gays in the military isn't discrimination?

Like I said, with a little adjusting, DADT could be left in place, the ban on gays lifted, at which point, DADT would proteect gay soldiers from being singled out, just like it would protecct straight soldiers from being singled out.
 
apdst said:
Discrimination.

Look at it like this; if I'm wrong, then no harm was done. If you're wrong, it could get ugly. If it gets ugly, it will have a negative impact on morale discipline and unit cohesion.

Ever been a member of a unit that serious morale, discipline and unit cohesion problems? I have and it's not pretty. Not the kind of unit that you want to go to the battlefield with.
Click to expand...

We could approach a lot of things like that. Many argued that on racism, read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. I think he tackles that type of thinking pretty well. Soldiers are even easier than the general populace in some respects, however, as they are accustom to taking orders. If we tell them to behave, the vast majority will, and those who won't? Well, we're all better off without them. being adult, and obeying laws is the sign of a good soldier, and a good citizen and a good person. being unable to control yourself is a sign of a problem.

But, i do appreciate your answer. I have to run now, but thanks for answering.
 
Conservative said:
that is a great point, what happens if proponents of the repeal are wrong? That is the problem with liberals on every issue, they never look at the possibility or consequences of being wrong on any issue and as you pointed out this could get ugly.
Click to expand...

Because Liberals never look that far ahead. Most of them aren't ever going to serve in the military, so they don't give a **** if it gets ugly. I believe there's even a faction within the Liberal community that wants things to get ugly. "Make thim mean homophobes pay for their bigotry".

I think's why we rarely hear--if ever--Liberals say, "...allow gays to serve in the military". But rather, we hear, "...allow gays to serve openly in the military". That smacks of, "in yo' face", kinda bull****.

It's like gays just being able to serve in the miltiary, without fear of being discharged, for being gay, just isn't enough for them.

They want that soldier to be able to stand up and say, "I'm gay and proud!". And, when that happens, it's going to cause problems.
 
apdst said:
Well, actually, it does. It allows gay to serve in the military. It prevents them from being asked, if they're gay.

A total ban on gays in the military isn't discrimination?

Like I said, with a little adjusting, DADT could be left in place, the ban on gays lifted, at which point, DADT would proteect gay soldiers from being singled out, just like it would protecct straight soldiers from being singled out.
Click to expand...

There are all sorts of rules in the military against discrimination. DADT is not one of them. Nowhere does it say "gays will not be discriminated against. What DADT does do is add a set of discriminatory rules against gays. Discrimination is not protection from discrimination.
 
Boo Radley said:
We could approach a lot of things like that. Many argued that on racism, read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. I think he tackles that type of thinking pretty well. Soldiers are even easier than the general populace in some respects, however, as they are accustom to taking orders. If we tell them to behave, the vast majority will, and those who won't? Well, we're all better off without them. being adult, and obeying laws is the sign of a good soldier, and a good citizen and a good person. being unable to control yourself is a sign of a problem.

But, i do appreciate your answer. I have to run now, but thanks for answering.
Click to expand...

Except, it would damn hard to inact a DADT policy with a black soldier. Obviously that's a dumbassed example. However, DADT could be left in place--with modifications. Are you aware of the race riots that the military experienced for the 20 +/- years after desegregation?

If we could avoid that kind of blowback, shouldn't we do it? I would like to avoid it. Wouldn't you?
 
Redress said:
There are all sorts of rules in the military against discrimination. DADT is not one of them. Nowhere does it say "gays will not be discriminated against. What DADT does do is add a set of discriminatory rules against gays. Discrimination is not protection from discrimination.
Click to expand...

After DADT was redefined and the ban on gays lifted, it would be a regulation against discrimination. Perhaps, apart of the modification of the regulation it could read, "to prevent discrimination...". Would that make you feel better? Or will you only be satisfied when a gay soldier can keep a great big bottle of gay pride pills in his footlocker?
 
apdst said:
Because Liberals never look that far ahead. Most of them aren't ever going to serve in the military, so they don't give a **** if it gets ugly. I believe there's even a faction within the Liberal community that wants things to get ugly. "Make thim mean homophobes pay for their bigotry".
Click to expand...

I believe that those against DADT repeal do so because they are worried that when they are around gays they will be overwhelmed with the desire to have gay sex. See how easy it is to believe stupid ****? By the way, liberal vets outnumber conservative vets in both the house and senate.

I think's why we rarely hear--if ever--Liberals say, "...allow gays to serve in the military". But rather, we hear, "...allow gays to serve openly in the military". That smacks of, "in yo' face", kinda bull****.

It's like gays just being able to serve in the miltiary, without fear of being discharged, for being gay, just isn't enough for them.

They want that soldier to be able to stand up and say, "I'm gay and proud!". And, when that happens, it's going to cause problems.
Click to expand...

The part in bold is why DADT repeal needs to happen. Right now gays can serve, but with a fear of discharge if any one should find out.
 
apdst said:
Except, it would damn hard to inact a DADT policy with a black soldier. Obviously that's a dumbassed example. However, DADT could be left in place--with modifications. Are you aware of the race riots that the military experienced for the 20 +/- years after desegregation?

If we could avoid that kind of blowback, shouldn't we do it? I would like to avoid it. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

I think "riot" is kind of a strong word...but no, if that's what it takes, that's what it takes. I doubt you'd find many people today that would agree that blacks should still be segregated because the military had some growing pains over it.
 
Navy Pride said:
I can speak for myself and I can honestly say if Gays could serve openly when I enlisted I would not have done it..........Sure you can change laws but when they directly affect people serving as is the case here the changes should be made I suggested.............
Click to expand...

So, if you don't mind me asking, what about Gays serving openly would have made you decide not to serve?
 
apdst said:
After DADT was redefined and the ban on gays lifted, it would be a regulation against discrimination. Perhaps, apart of the modification of the regulation it could read, "to prevent discrimination...". Would that make you feel better? Or will you only be satisfied when a gay soldier can keep a great big bottle of gay pride pills in his footlocker?
Click to expand...

So DADT would become "gays will not be discriminated against" and not "gays will be kicked out if they admit they are gay or get caught doing something so horrible as hold hands"? Wouldn't that kinda make it something entirely different than what it is and therefore need a new name since it would be an entirely different regulation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom