• 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!

DADT cloture passes

Ok, let us get this cleared up: It is my belief that Russian gays can’t sue the military if they feel like they didn’t get a promotion they were qualified for simply because they are gay. I don’t have to look it up because I know it to be true balls to bones.

I also think the same is true for 99% of the countries you folks are throwing in my face in an attempt to make the US look like it is more bigoted than the rest of the world.

I call you on your claim that Russia (an others) not having a ban on gays is the same as it is in the US. Gays have rights, as a protected group, in the US that they don’t have in other countries.

So, if you think you can just throw out a list of countries that don’t have bans on gays serving in the military and claim that wins your argument for you, you are mistaken.

You have not shown where they are different. You have not shown any evidence that lawsuits would be a problem. You have not shown anything really.
 
Actually, you are trying to connect two dots that are not even in the same plane of existence. It fails, apdst.

He is not trying to connect the dots, he is just trying to sorta suggest that maybe the connection is there. it's the same thing, but with denyability.
 
There is a caveat. If the ACLU can sue the military for discrimination against a service member on behalf of that service member or while that service member is still in the service, my argument stands. If not, I might have to retract my opposition to this bill.
 
Fantastic, the Democratic Congress managed to repeal something that 67% of Americans wanted repealed, including over 80% of Democrats, 70% of independents, and 47% of Republicans. How is this a victory? It's the most obvious thing ever.

It's a crazy day in America when an issue the vast majority of the nation and over 80% of Democrats agree on is repealed, and this is seen as a victory for the Democratic leadership.

American politics are laughably absurd. I can't believe they've convinced some of you that this administration is being "tough" in any meaningful sense of the word :shock:
 
Really? I’ll have to confirm this, but if true, this will have a major impact on my reasons for opposing the bill.

I honestly hope you are correct.

It is absolutely true. An active duty servicemember cannot sue the military/US government while serving. Any issue that comes up concerning discrimination and/or harassment has to be handled by the person's chain of command.
 
You have not shown where they are different. You have not shown any evidence that lawsuits would be a problem. You have not shown anything really.

I don't have to show anything do I?

Your point? Other than being insulting?
 
There is a caveat. If the ACLU can sue the military for discrimination against a service member on behalf of that service member or while that service member is still in the service, my argument stands. If not, I might have to retract my opposition to this bill.

A proxy (which is what the ACLU would be) cannot also not sue the military on behalf of an active servicemember.
 
2. My drama? lol, I’m talking about the shortcomings of this bill and all you can come up with is my “drama”? lol

You said this bill would weaken the military. That's drama and silliness. Won't do a thing to weaken the military.
 
I don't have to show anything do I?

Your point? Other than being insulting?

Depends on whether you want to make a point. If you are not trying to actually debate, then no, you don't have to show anything. If you are interested in discussion and debate of issues, then yes, really you do.

It took me ~5 minutes once you finally got around to saying what you where trying to say to show where you where wrong...it took roguenuke less time.
 
Depends on whether you want to make a point. If you are not trying to actually debate, then no, you don't have to show anything. If you are interested in discussion and debate of issues, then yes, really you do.

It took me ~5 minutes once you finally got around to saying what you where trying to say to show where you where wrong...it took roguenuke less time.

I stated an opinion. I am here to talk to others about current issues and to try to understand where they are coming from and to try to help them understand where I am coming from.

Unlike you, I don’t see anyone as the enemy and I don’t prejudge them. I admit when I am wrong because it isn’t a popularity contest for me. If you have a problem with me not looking everything up that you say I need to prove, get over it. If I say something you think is wrong, feel free to disprove it with evidence. I will obviously listen and, if I dare say, unlike you I will change my mind when my points of contention have been answered.

BTW, I now know why you took it as an insult when I told you I respected you the other day. You have a closed mind, you profile people and you are intolerant. Bigots come in all shapes colors and sizes don’t they?
 
Last edited:
If gays don’t start asking for special treatment in the military (not holding my breath) and it doesn’t end up costing the military a boatload of money, I have no problem with this bill at this time.
 
The gay marriage thing is going to be fascinating in the military now. Will gay couples married in Vermont qualify for spousal benefits? It'll cause problems with a gay couple in Texas. Perhaps it'll will be the driving course for gay marriage a couple years from now.

A repeal doesn't mean recognition of gay marriage... all this means is that they won't be tossed if their preference becomes known. Gay marriage is still a whole 'nother issue that (if tackled by the military) won't be on a state managed basis. It would have to be federal, as new recruits don't have a say in where they'll be stationed (1st base/fort)... some even go overseas.
 
Now you see why you should do your own homework?

Oh I see, I should research everything first, make sure I have all the answers and a completely closed mind…..and then I can come to this debate just to argue (bang my head against a wall) with people like you. Is that how is supposed to work?
 
I love that hypocritical attitude. "We're so tolerant for everyone. Unless you disagree, then you're a hateful bigot and we won't tolerate you."

True tolerance requires you to tolerate beliefs and cultures even if you don't think they're right.

With that logic, we shouldn't have ushered in equality for blacks & women... people of that era should expressed "true tolerance" for the beliefs and cultures that highlighted less-than-human actions. Proponents of this repeal are backing tolerance for homosexuals... not bigots. You don't deserve it (figuratively speaking).
 
Oh I see, I should research everything first, make sure I have all the answers and a completely closed mind…..and then I can come to this debate just to argue (bang my head against a wall) with people like you. Is that how is supposed to work?

If you have all of the answers (stemming from adequate research) then who ever is on the other side of the discussion will be wrong.
 
If gays don’t start asking for special treatment in the military (not holding my breath) and it doesn’t end up costing the military a boatload of money, I have no problem with this bill at this time.

What sort of special treatment?
 
Oh I see, I should research everything first, make sure I have all the answers and a completely closed mind…..and then I can come to this debate just to argue (bang my head against a wall) with people like you. Is that how is supposed to work?

Wait... you're saying that doing research and support for your arguments equal a closed mind?
 
Back
Top Bottom