• 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

I am sorry for your friend's loss.
So some may support it. And many many many more are against it. And calling us "hardcore liberals" because we support a repeal isn't true. 74% of Republicans want a repeal.

He was a good man and a good friend...............Not sure your right on the many more that support it jusf the louder and more vociferous ones...My gay friend said most of the gay people he knows are conservative like him and wish that everyone could just live their life in peace and harmony....
 
He was a good man and a good friend...............Not sure your right on the many more that support it jusf the louder and more vociferous ones...My gay friend said most of the gay people he knows are conservative like him and wish that everyone could just live their life in peace and harmony....

May I ask where this person is from?
 
Care to post those regulations for us?

Regulations against sexual harassment.
Regulations against discrimination based on sexuality (believe it or not, this one is already a part of military rules).
Regulations against anyone having sex on base/military property (with some exceptions made for military hotels and housing).
Regulations against intolerance.
 
I'm not saying that regulations are necessarily good, or bad; only that they are regulations and as long as they are such, they are to be adhered to. It's not the place of a line soldier to ignore regulations that he doesn't agree with. One day, a soldier may think that the regulation forbidding the use of alcohol while on duty is unfair and stupid and decide to have a few beers while he's out in the field and it just so happens that he's the driver of a 65 ton pound main battle tank.

It's like helmet laws in the civilian world. You may not like it, but it's the law and there's a penalty for breaking the law.

And not once have I said that those people should have broken military regulations. I have very rarely mentioned those who have already been put out under DADT. I do believe those people should be allowed back in, but I think that many will be given that option (if they meet all the other requirements for military entry). But I am fighting for DADT to be repealed. That is fair. Allowing all servicemembers to discuss their relationships (within reason) in front of other servicemembers without fear of punishment/discharge.
 
What matters is that I think that anyone who opposes a repeal of DADT is a bigot. They don't oppose it for practical reasons (because there are none), they oppose it because they don't like gays. My point is that you are saying gays are rapist perverts who want to rape any man they see, but if you knew an actual gay person, you would know its not true.

And my point is, that this is what happens under DADT.

Of course you think that. This ain't nothin' to do with gays being to serve in the military. It's all about political correctness

I would love to see what tune you sing when a gay soldier gets raped by another gay soldier, or grudge ****ed by a straight soldier. Whatcha' gonna say then, huh?
 
I would love to see what tune you sing when a gay soldier gets raped by another gay soldier, or grudge ****ed by a straight soldier. Whatcha' gonna say then, huh?

That kind of thing happens now even with DADT. Repealing DADT means the victim could come forward about it without fearing being discharged.
 
I would love to see what tune you sing when a gay soldier gets raped by another gay soldier, or grudge ****ed by a straight soldier. Whatcha' gonna say then, huh?

You've got to be kidding me! You realize that homosexual people, whether male or female, aren't all violent rapists... right? I'm actually doubting you do. We have female soldiers in the military, what if they get raped by a male soldier? Whatcha gonna say then, huh?

Furthermore, they're already in the military, they just don't say they're homosexual. Even if we granted your premise that most homosexuals are violent rapists, wouldn't it be better to know who is and who isn't a homosexual? Aren't you at greater risk when it could be anyone in your squad? One second you're dropping the soap, the next your best mate is up in your junk.

Ahh, there's nothing more entertaining than observing the beliefs of people like you :)
 
How exactly do you define flaunting it?

lets see, handcuffing ones self to the white house fence, taping his mouth shut at a news conference.

And before you say he did that after the fact,

actions like this were just brewing inside waiting for a reason to "flaunt" it.

its true with everyone who feels slighted thru predjudice.
minorities, women, gays, whatever, it seems to be a common denominator. Give them a reason, and usually just a single person or entity that slights them, not a society at large, and they soap box it.
Because people like you encourage it.

and the battlefield is not the place for this kind of PC to take place.
Its serious business this silly war thing you watch from afar.

You want to serve, you're gay, then fine.
but stfu and serve, dont "flaunt" it, define that any way youd like if it makes you feel better.
We have generalized it for you, its called dont ask dont tell.
 
He was a good man and a good friend...............Not sure your right on the many more that support it jusf the louder and more vociferous ones...My gay friend said most of the gay people he knows are conservative like him and wish that everyone could just live their life in peace and harmony....

Unfortunately for your "friend", the bigots and homophobes won't allow him to do that.
 
They are mostly considered non-deployable and are restricted in where they can be assigned,

Very comforting for the person who has to deploy in their place???

And not everyone with AIDS is gay. In fact, there was a case recently about an airman who knew he was HIV positive and still reportedly had unprotected sex with 11 women without informing them.

You assume that a man having sex with a woman means that he can’t be a homosexual, but to me a man with HIV having unprotected sex with 11 woman means he does not like women.

Why is it any different having a straight guy or a guy who you believe is straight check you out than it is to have a gay guy check you out?
Normal men don’t check each other out in the shower...

In fact, there are probably a lot of bigoted people out there who would willing allow a fellow servicemember to die just because they don't like a certain trait of that person.

Big ears? Long nose?? What you are saying here is that it would be best – in light of so many people not liking homosexuals and wishing them dead – to retain DADT..

Repealing DADT means the victim could come forward about it without fearing being discharged.

First of all if one man rapes another man the rapist is a homosexual. Second, why would a person who doesn’t like being raped put him military service above justice for himself and others who may suffer the same treatment? Has it been your experience that stab victims are questioned about their sexual preference? I suppose that motive may be an issue but also doubt that many of these cases would get out of the administrative process and go to trial.
 
You've got to be kidding me! You realize that homosexual people, whether male or female, aren't all violent rapists... right? I'm actually doubting you do. We have female soldiers in the military, what if they get raped by a male soldier? Whatcha gonna say then, huh?

Furthermore, they're already in the military, they just don't say they're homosexual. Even if we granted your premise that most homosexuals are violent rapists, wouldn't it be better to know who is and who isn't a homosexual? Aren't you at greater risk when it could be anyone in your squad? One second you're dropping the soap, the next your best mate is up in your junk.

Ahh, there's nothing more entertaining than observing the beliefs of people like you :)

I once had the misfortune of investigating a case where a guy's roommate raped him.

according to the "victim", his roommate had been in the habit of coming home drunk and raping him for about six months. during the most recent instance, the roommate also beat him up. When I asked the guy why he waited so long to report it he said, "Well, I really didn't mind the sex. But when he started beating me up, I had to draw the line somewhere."

Roommate charged with assault, since the victim admitted he didn't mind the sex.

Victim charged with violating article 125, since he admitted he didn't mind the sex.
 
You want to serve, you're gay, then fine.
but stfu and serve, dont "flaunt" it, define that any way youd like if it makes you feel better.
We have generalized it for you, its called dont ask dont tell.

Translation:
Pretend you are straight.
 

Translation:
Pretend you are straight.

A very liberal twist.

pretend your listening, hows that?

Dont ask dont tell means just that. In the sense that you know the line not to cross.

Again, I am a devout Christain, and mentioning I am going to Sunday prayer over at the Chaplains tent, or saying "thank the good lord" before I eat, or mentioning my church back home is one thing.

Using that I am a devout Christain to gain attention, or to make some kind of unecessary point is another.

I've served with known atheists, known because they once mentioned it in conversation. And thats fine, it's accepted, still a good soldier, trusted, respected.

But if he talks about it in a look at me look at me kind of way,
or claims he wants someone punished because they dont agree with his beliefs then he's got trouble, trouble he asked for.

I'm speaking reality, I notice most liberals, on this subject are speaking of some sort of perfect world that just doesnt exist, on the battlefield, they're kids, for the most part. And teaching them to be PC is not the militarys job. We have enough troubles without worrying if someones feelings are being hurt.

Can you grasp that?
 
A very liberal twist.

pretend your listening, hows that?

Dont ask dont tell means just that. In the sense that you know the line not to cross.

Again, I am a devout Christain, and mentioning I am going to Sunday prayer over at the Chaplains tent, or saying "thank the good lord" before I eat, or mentioning my church back home is one thing.

Using that I am a devout Christain to gain attention, or to make some kind of unecessary point is another.

I've served with known atheists, known because they once mentioned it in conversation. And thats fine, it's accepted, still a good soldier, trusted, respected.

But if he talks about it in a look at me look at me kind of way,
or claims he wants someone punished because they dont agree with his beliefs then he's got trouble, trouble he asked for.

I'm speaking reality, I notice most liberals, on this subject are speaking of some sort of perfect world that just doesnt exist, on the battlefield, they're kids, for the most part. And teaching them to be PC is not the militarys job. We have enough troubles without worrying if someones feelings are being hurt.

Can you grasp that?

Holy double standard!

Look, gays are not out to get attention for the most part, gays simply want to be able to serve without worrying they will be seen walking hand in hand with their partner at the mall(yes, people have been discharged for that under DADT). They want to be free to put up a picture of their partner on Facebook(yes, they can get discharged under DADT for that). They want to be free to email their partner and say "I love you" without worrying about being discharged(yes, you can get discharged for that under DADT). They want to bring their partner to command events that family is allowed to attend. Gays just want to be treated just like every one else.
 
Holy double standard!
Gays just want to be treated just like every one else.

and they can, outside of the military.

I'm sorry but I dont know how else to put this except to be blundt.

the military operates under a different set of rules. The UCMJ allows you to be executed if you endanger the lives of fellow soldiers.
at their discretion. These guidelines wouldnt be tolerted in civilian court either.

If the military feels being openly gay interferes with the day to day operations in combat situations, then we are sorry.

This conversation has been in many circles, and I can tell you if there was a draft, there are gays that would use dodt to get out of serving.
So maybe you should refocus your efforts if your point is to distinguish right from wrong.

The militarys rules are very obvious and blundt up front.
Dont join
 
and they can, outside of the military.

I'm sorry but I dont know how else to put this except to be blundt.

the military operates under a different set of rules. The UCMJ allows you to be executed if you endanger the lives of fellow soldiers.
at their discretion. These guidelines wouldnt be tolerted in civilian court either.

If the military feels being openly gay interferes with the day to day operations in combat situations, then we are sorry.

This conversation has been in many circles, and I can tell you if there was a draft, there are gays that would use dodt to get out of serving.
So maybe you should refocus your efforts if your point is to distinguish right from wrong.

The militarys rules are very obvious and blundt up front.
Dont join

"The military" does not feel that gays interfere with day to day operations. The conclusion of the study done by the military(http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130%28secure-hires%29.pdf) is that it will not hurt day to day operations. The RAND study update requested by the military and done at the same time as the militaries concluded the same thing(http://health.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG1056.sum.pdf).
 
"The military" does not feel that gays interfere with day to day operations. The conclusion of the study done by the military(http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130%28secure-hires%29.pdf) is that it will not hurt day to day operations. The RAND study update requested by the military and done at the same time as the militaries concluded the same thing(http://health.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG1056.sum.pdf).

Trust me, nothing has changed since Dont ask dont tell was put into place except pressure from a liberal administration

you're playing PC politics with an established institution

a lot like gay marriage being accepted by a small minority,
but I suppose on that front no one is genuinly impacted
 
The title of this thread no longer applies. Shouldn't we call it a day?

j-mac
 
A win for the good guys......Looks like a repeal of DADT is dead..........

Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com

'DON'T ASK' STAYS: The Senate has failed to vote in favor of repealing "don't ask, don't tell." Democrats got 57 votes in favor of repealing it, three short of the 60 required.

60 required to beak a filibuster. Duh.

The majority of the country and the senate wants it repealed. Homophobes need to drop their fear of gays or go live in a cave until they die. (that way they have less chance of passing their stupidity on to the next generation)
 
Very comforting for the person who has to deploy in their place???

You assume that a man having sex with a woman means that he can’t be a homosexual, but to me a man with HIV having unprotected sex with 11 woman means he does not like women.

Normal men don’t check each other out in the shower...

Big ears? Long nose?? What you are saying here is that it would be best – in light of so many people not liking homosexuals and wishing them dead – to retain DADT..

First of all if one man rapes another man the rapist is a homosexual. Second, why would a person who doesn’t like being raped put him military service above justice for himself and others who may suffer the same treatment? Has it been your experience that stab victims are questioned about their sexual preference? I suppose that motive may be an issue but also doubt that many of these cases would get out of the administrative process and go to trial.

Not my problem. I don't make the rules of the military. But, since they aren't being put out under DADT, it is quite possible that they got HIV from a woman if they are a man, and most likely that they got HIV from a man if they are a woman. In fact, before we were scheduled to pull into to Thailand (it got canceled), we were given a brief about how most of the women there had AIDS (don't know if it is true, but there are a lot with AIDS). The men were warned not to purchase services from a hooker while there because of this.

Also, the airman was married. A man does not have to be gay to have AIDS. And a man doesn't have to be gay to hate women either.

Some straight men do check each other out in the shower, whether you do or not. They especially do when it is pointed out to them that one of them is less or more endowed than usual. As I said, I heard from many straight guys about how well endowed one of the other guys in our department was. Some of them were in a separate berthing than the talked about guy, so they wouldn't even have normally shared a shower with him.

There are plenty of people who are uncomfortable with traits of others, such as race, weight, religion, who they date (not just homosexuals/bisexuals), how they dress, activities a person participates in (even within military regulations), and even their intelligence level. We should not discriminate against anyone (i.e. having extra, more restrictive regulations for a certain group) just because some people may be uncomfortable around them.

Any intolerance or discrimination should be dealt with swiftly, effectively, and fairly by a person chain of command, whether it is verbal or in actions or whether it is done passively or violently.
 
A very liberal twist.

pretend your listening, hows that?

Dont ask dont tell means just that. In the sense that you know the line not to cross.

Again, I am a devout Christain, and mentioning I am going to Sunday prayer over at the Chaplains tent, or saying "thank the good lord" before I eat, or mentioning my church back home is one thing.

Using that I am a devout Christain to gain attention, or to make some kind of unecessary point is another.

I've served with known atheists, known because they once mentioned it in conversation. And thats fine, it's accepted, still a good soldier, trusted, respected.

But if he talks about it in a look at me look at me kind of way,
or claims he wants someone punished because they dont agree with his beliefs then he's got trouble, trouble he asked for.

I'm speaking reality, I notice most liberals, on this subject are speaking of some sort of perfect world that just doesnt exist, on the battlefield, they're kids, for the most part. And teaching them to be PC is not the militarys job. We have enough troubles without worrying if someones feelings are being hurt.

Can you grasp that?

The problem that you don't seem to be grasping here is that you are completely free to say quite openly, as often as you wish, and anywhere you want that you are Christian. It may annoy some people and even make them very uncomfortable, but you can still do it in the military without fearing discharge whatsoever (of course you may face punishment if you are being extremely inappropriate with your pronouncements).

And heterosexuals can do many things that homosexuals are not allowed to do just because they are homosexuals. It is not about flaunting their sexuality, it is about being able to openly do the same exact things that heterosexuals are allowed to do in the military without facing discharge or punishment.
 
and they can, outside of the military.

I'm sorry but I dont know how else to put this except to be blundt.

the military operates under a different set of rules. The UCMJ allows you to be executed if you endanger the lives of fellow soldiers.
at their discretion. These guidelines wouldnt be tolerted in civilian court either.

If the military feels being openly gay interferes with the day to day operations in combat situations, then we are sorry.

This conversation has been in many circles, and I can tell you if there was a draft, there are gays that would use dodt to get out of serving.
So maybe you should refocus your efforts if your point is to distinguish right from wrong.

The militarys rules are very obvious and blundt up front.
Dont join

Which is why we are trying to get those rules changed. What part of Congress working to get bills actually passed that would repeal DADT do you not get? That is the point. Getting rid of military rules that are discriminatory with no evidence to prove that the reasons for those rules being in place are sound, but rather evidence showing that it most likely will not have a detrimental effect at all on the military to allow gays to serve openly.
 
If that is the case then why is it voted down nearly every time it is put to a ballot?


j-mac

Because our Congressmen like to play politics rather than actually doing their job and getting things done.
 
Back
Top Bottom