• 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

I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.
Click to expand...
If someone asks you what 2+2 is and you say “H”; that isn’t the answer, is it?? You said something, but isn’t an answer.

There are lots of people in the military that don't care if they serve with homosexuals.
Click to expand...

In a spirit of fairness I ask why it is fair for homosexuals to shower with me but it isn’t allowed for me to shower with the lady nurses? As far your habit of staring at the guy next to you’s junk you might try to break that habit before you shower with a squid of combat troops. They might stomp you down the drain pipe.
 
danarhea said:
This is an opportunity. Gotta hand it to Obama, and also to Bill Clinton, for getting the ball, or maybe two of them, rolling on this issue. And the military now has big plans. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm glad this pleases you; I know what a big burden this was on your sensitivities. No issue was more important.
 
Iron River said:
If someone asks you what 2+2 is and you say “H”; that isn’t the answer, is it?? You said something, but isn’t an answer.



In a spirit of fairness I ask why it is fair for homosexuals to shower with me but it isn’t allowed for me to shower with the lady nurses? As far your habit of staring at the guy next to you’s junk you might try to break that habit before you shower with a squid of combat troops. They might stomp you down the drain pipe.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals already shower with you. Any problems so far?
 
Deuce said:
Homosexuals already shower with you. Any problems so far?
Click to expand...

Not openly. You don't get this, either?

That dog just ain't gonna hunt. I don't know why ya'll think it will.

You very own sacred study says that there are going to be privacy issues--a fact that none of the Lefties bothered to mention while they were insisting that, "everything is going to be just fiine".
 
Iron River said:
If someone asks you what 2+2 is and you say “H”; that isn’t the answer, is it?? You said something, but isn’t an answer.



In a spirit of fairness I ask why it is fair for homosexuals to shower with me but it isn’t allowed for me to shower with the lady nurses? As far your habit of staring at the guy next to you’s junk you might try to break that habit before you shower with a squid of combat troops. They might stomp you down the drain pipe.
Click to expand...

Gay guys have been showering with straight guys and other gay guys since high school or possibly earlier. And vice versa. Gay girls have been showering with straight girls and gay girls since high school or possibly earlier, and vice versa. Guys and girls, men and women do not normally shower together unvoluntarily, in the US. It is not because of the sexuality or presumed sexuality that these groups do not shower together. It is because of our modest and Puritan-influenced culture.

If there were nudists in the military, they could most likely shower with either sex and have no issues because most actual nudists do not view the naked human body as a sexual object normally. It is our issues (modesty) with what the majority of the US associates the human body with that makes us equate naked opposite sex body almost every time with sex. Men and women have been taught that it is not right for a man to see a woman that he is not intimate with naked, nor is it right for a woman to see a man that she is not intimate with naked. We have essentially been taught that the naked human body is a sexual object most of our lives, as heterosexuals.

But, for gay people, they wouldn't really be getting the same message. We don't teach our children that it is wrong for people of the same sex to see us naked, not for those of the same sex in a person's peer group. In fact, we normally force every school age child/teen to shower together with members of their same sex whenever they participate in group sports. Nothing sexual is seen about men or women showering together, normally. Since there is no assumed intimacy, then the message is that a man in front of a man naked is not sexual, normally, just like a woman in front of a woman naked is not sexual, normally.
 
Iron River said:
In a spirit of fairness I ask why it is fair for homosexuals to shower with me but it isn’t allowed for me to shower with the lady nurses?
Click to expand...

When you can knock up a guy, then you can talk. Until then, they are not comparable situations.
 
I love how people who are saying it's unfair gay's get to shower with them, but they don't get to shower if women. Like it's some big freaking awesome thing to get to shower with them. Here's a hint, gays aren't interested in straight people.
 
roguenuke said:
Gay guys have been showering with straight guys and other gay guys since high school or possibly earlier. And vice versa. Gay girls have been showering with straight girls and gay girls since high school or possibly earlier, and vice versa. Guys and girls, men and women do not normally shower together unvoluntarily, in the US. It is not because of the sexuality or presumed sexuality that these groups do not shower together. It is because of our modest and Puritan-influenced culture.

If there were nudists in the military, they could most likely shower with either sex and have no issues because most actual nudists do not view the naked human body as a sexual object normally. It is our issues (modesty) with what the majority of the US associates the human body with that makes us equate naked opposite sex body almost every time with sex. Men and women have been taught that it is not right for a man to see a woman that he is not intimate with naked, nor is it right for a woman to see a man that she is not intimate with naked. We have essentially been taught that the naked human body is a sexual object most of our lives, as heterosexuals.

But, for gay people, they wouldn't really be getting the same message. We don't teach our children that it is wrong for people of the same sex to see us naked, not for those of the same sex in a person's peer group. In fact, we normally force every school age child/teen to shower together with members of their same sex whenever they participate in group sports. Nothing sexual is seen about men or women showering together, normally. Since there is no assumed intimacy, then the message is that a man in front of a man naked is not sexual, normally, just like a woman in front of a woman naked is not sexual, normally.
Click to expand...

CriticalThought said:
When you can knock up a guy, then you can talk. Until then, they are not comparable situations.
Click to expand...

Your Star said:
I love how people who are saying it's unfair gay's get to shower with them, but they don't get to shower if women. Like it's some big freaking awesome thing to get to shower with them. Here's a hint, gays aren't interested in straight people.
Click to expand...



But...the sacred study tells a different story. How do you argue against that fact? And irrefutable fact, according to the DADT abolitionists.
 
apdst said:
But...the sacred study tells a different story. How do you argue against that fact? And irrefutable fact, according to the DADT abolitionists.
Click to expand...

It doesn't tell a different story than what I posted. Gays would not have made up a significant part of that study (as in the respondants). Which means most of those answers were based on how straights see naked bodies.

Although I did forget to add this part, since many straight people view nakedness as sexual, then they mistakenly correlate that to their sexuality, instead of what they have been taught about opposite sex nakedness. This means that many view the issue of gays showering with straights of the same sex as a sexual issue, since to many straight people, showering with the people that they would be attracted to is prohibited because of the sexual nature of being naked around the opposite sex, not the reality that it is a modesty issue.

Now, those that answered the polls were basing their beliefs that their would be shower problems on the premise that if they were allowed to shower with the opposite sex (who they are attracted to) then they would find the situation sexual, so therefore, gays showering with the same sex must find that situation sexual. What they (and you) don't understand, is that being naked or seeing someone that you may be attracted to naked does not have to be sexual. Once people could get over this issue, then we might get somewhere. Most gay men and women have been showering with straight men and women since they were children or at least teens. If they haven't tried anything since that time, it is highly unlikely that they will try anything in the military just because they can serve openly.

Now, yes, there will probably be some issues with some straight men (and possibly women, but less likely) that will beat up or worse an openly gay person because they are paranoid that the gay guy (girl) is lusting after their naked body, but these issues can actually happen with DADT in place, depending on the level of a person's paranoia. General military training and discipline can keep most of these issues from becoming problems, and good leadership can cut them down to very small numbers. They will never be eliminated, even with rules completely banning gays.
 
apdst said:
But...the sacred study tells a different story. How do you argue against that fact? And irrefutable fact, according to the DADT abolitionists.
Click to expand...

Where does the study state that gays want to hit on straight people?
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't tell a different story than what I posted. Gays would not have made up a significant part of that study (as in the respondants). Which means most of those answers were based on how straights see naked bodies.

Although I did forget to add this part, since many straight people view nakedness as sexual, then they mistakenly correlate that to their sexuality, instead of what they have been taught about opposite sex nakedness. This means that many view the issue of gays showering with straights of the same sex as a sexual issue, since to many straight people, showering with the people that they would be attracted to is prohibited because of the sexual nature of being naked around the opposite sex, not the reality that it is a modesty issue.

Now, those that answered the polls were basing their beliefs that their would be shower problems on the premise that if they were allowed to shower with the opposite sex (who they are attracted to) then they would find the situation sexual, so therefore, gays showering with the same sex must find that situation sexual. What they (and you) don't understand, is that being naked or seeing someone that you may be attracted to naked does not have to be sexual. Once people could get over this issue, then we might get somewhere. Most gay men and women have been showering with straight men and women since they were children or at least teens. If they haven't tried anything since that time, it is highly unlikely that they will try anything in the military just because they can serve openly.

Now, yes, there will probably be some issues with some straight men (and possibly women, but less likely) that will beat up or worse an openly gay person because they are paranoid that the gay guy (girl) is lusting after their naked body, but these issues can actually happen with DADT in place, depending on the level of a person's paranoia. General military training and discipline can keep most of these issues from becoming problems, and good leadership can cut them down to very small numbers. They will never be eliminated, even with rules completely banning gays.
Click to expand...

Ok, but how do you argue with the irrefutable DoD study that says that most service members--regardless of their opinion on DADT--have questions regarding housing arrangements. Those numbers probably go into the low to mid 90's.

If 90% of the military has a question about billeting, then that is going to have to be dealt with. It's an obvious issue. Gays and straights are going to be billeted together. The DoD study--The Bible of the anti-DADT folks--indicates that it won't happen. If this issue isn't dealt with properly, it will have a negative effect on our armed forces.

Deuce said:
Where does the study state that gays want to hit on straight people?
Click to expand...

Ok, but first you show me where I even said that. Thanks in advance.
 
apdst said:
Ok, but how do you argue with the irrefutable DoD study that says that most service members--regardless of their opinion on DADT--have questions regarding housing arrangements. Those numbers probably go into the low to mid 90's.

If 90% of the military has a question about billeting, then that is going to have to be dealt with. It's an obvious issue. Gays and straights are going to be billeted together. The DoD study--The Bible of the anti-DADT folks--indicates that it won't happen. If this issue isn't dealt with properly, it will have a negative effect on our armed forces.
Click to expand...

They'll get over having the sleep next to the "queer faggot" the same way they got used to sleeping next to the "dumb nigger" back in the 50s. And if they don't, they may get out, but the military will be a better place for it.
 
apdst said:
Ok, but how do you argue with the irrefutable DoD study that says that most service members--regardless of their opinion on DADT--have questions regarding housing arrangements. Those numbers probably go into the low to mid 90's.

If 90% of the military has a question about billeting, then that is going to have to be dealt with. It's an obvious issue. Gays and straights are going to be billeted together. The DoD study--The Bible of the anti-DADT folks--indicates that it won't happen. If this issue isn't dealt with properly, it will have a negative effect on our armed forces.
Click to expand...

Having questions about billeting is not the same as not being able to billet with an openly gay person. Gays and straights have been living together, showering together in the military probably for as long as there has been any military. And every person who has joined the military since the inception of DADT should have understood that there was always a chance that they could be showering with a gay person. Whether they are openly gay or not, would not change how they view another man's/woman's body. These are things that should be explained to troops. Not everyone will understand, but it will help to get some to see why such a change only change's the view of a person who feels that a gay guy/girl would be attracted to them, not the potential actions of the gay person. This is especially true of units that already have gay personnel in them. The guys/girls in those units have already been showering/living with gay personnel, with little/no incidents (since, if there were incidents, most likely the gay person would have been put out under DADT). Another thing that would help is ensuring that personnel understand the rules of the military, i.e. sexual harassment, false reports, discrimination, violence, fraternization, and sex on base/in berthing spaces.

Training and good leadership are key to ensuring that this does happen with as few incidents as possible. Our servicemembers can do this. It is not asking too much from them to understand that those who are against gays serving openly are probably the biggest problem in this whole matter. Their intolerance is what is going to cause most of the issues. Everything else can be dealt with, to a large extent, through rules already in place in the military.
 
Wiseone said:
They'll get over having the sleep next to the "queer faggot" the same way they got used to sleeping next to the "dumb nigger" back in the 50s.
Click to expand...


What are you going to say when most of the soldiers that don't want to sleep next to the, "queer faggot", are, "homophobe niggers"? Are you saying that the military would be better off with fewer black soldiers?

Nevermind that silly arguement; gay and straight soldiers aren't going to be forced to share billets. It just ain't gonna happen. If the 80-90% of our service get out and there is a draft, that won't be good for our military.





And if they don't, they may get out, but the military will be a better place for it.
Click to expand...

Why does it always sound like this is nothing more than an attempt to smoke out all the, "bigots"?
 
roguenuke said:
Having questions about billeting is not the same as not being able to billet with an openly gay person. Gays and straights have been living together, showering together in the military probably for as long as there has been any military. And every person who has joined the military since the inception of DADT should have understood that there was always a chance that they could be showering with a gay person. Whether they are openly gay or not, would not change how they view another man's/woman's body. These are things that should be explained to troops. Not everyone will understand, but it will help to get some to see why such a change only change's the view of a person who feels that a gay guy/girl would be attracted to them, not the potential actions of the gay person. This is especially true of units that already have gay personnel in them. The guys/girls in those units have already been showering/living with gay personnel, with little/no incidents (since, if there were incidents, most likely the gay person would have been put out under DADT). Another thing that would help is ensuring that personnel understand the rules of the military, i.e. sexual harassment, false reports, discrimination, violence, fraternization, and sex on base/in berthing spaces.

Training and good leadership are key to ensuring that this does happen with as few incidents as possible. Our servicemembers can do this. It is not asking too much from them to understand that those who are against gays serving openly are probably the biggest problem in this whole matter. Their intolerance is what is going to cause most of the issues. Everything else can be dealt with, to a large extent, through rules already in place in the military.
Click to expand...

If they didn't care either way, there wouldn't be any questions...:rofl
 
apdst said:
If they didn't care either way, there wouldn't be any questions...:rofl
Click to expand...

That's not true. Many are confused about what exactly will happen. And some are even confused about what rules are currently in place or how current rules will apply to homosexuals. There are plenty of bases/places now where sex in the barracks is not exactly cracked down on. But, then again, there are a lot of men who wouldn't think twice about his roommate sleeping with a chick(assuming the roommate is straight) in their room, but who might have an issue with their roommate sleeping with another man in their room.

And there are a lot of people who see gay men as getting some of the same unfair advantages that women get (yes, I do believe that there are some men, and even some women, who give women unfair advantages based on their gender, of course, I also believe that there are some men and women who expect much more from women than they do men). They don't seem to understand that most of that unfairness stems from gender, not sexuality. Most men who give women an unfair advantage do so because they are attracted to the woman or they feel pity for women or some even believe that if they don't, the woman will cry foul unjustly. Most women who give women an unfair advantage is because of their own dislike of men or some injustice that they are (wrongfully) trying to correct for. It is not based on the fact that the woman might be attracted to them. So it is not logical to assume that most gay men would get that same unfair advantage in most cases just for them being gay.

In fact, it is much more logical that the gay man will be unfairly expected to be held at a different, higher standard than most straight men (i.e. many who are openly gay will probably see lower evals or lower scores in some areas based solely on prejudices that they are somehow hurting the unit), which could lead, in some cases, to an almost informal DADT policy. The difference would be that revealing your sexuality inadvertently would not get you discharged. And, if the discrimination is blatant enough, then the person could bring charges against the other person without fear of being "found out".
 
roguenuke said:
That's not true. Many are confused about what exactly will happen. And some are even confused about what rules are currently in place or how current rules will apply to homosexuals. There are plenty of bases/places now where sex in the barracks is not exactly cracked down on. But, then again, there are a lot of men who wouldn't think twice about his roommate sleeping with a chick(assuming the roommate is straight) in their room, but who might have an issue with their roommate sleeping with another man in their room.

And there are a lot of people who see gay men as getting some of the same unfair advantages that women get (yes, I do believe that there are some men, and even some women, who give women unfair advantages based on their gender, of course, I also believe that there are some men and women who expect much more from women than they do men). They don't seem to understand that most of that unfairness stems from gender, not sexuality. Most men who give women an unfair advantage do so because they are attracted to the woman or they feel pity for women or some even believe that if they don't, the woman will cry foul unjustly. Most women who give women an unfair advantage is because of their own dislike of men or some injustice that they are (wrongfully) trying to correct for. It is not based on the fact that the woman might be attracted to them. So it is not logical to assume that most gay men would get that same unfair advantage in most cases just for them being gay.

In fact, it is much more logical that the gay man will be unfairly expected to be held at a different, higher standard than most straight men (i.e. many who are openly gay will probably see lower evals or lower scores in some areas based solely on prejudices that they are somehow hurting the unit), which could lead, in some cases, to an almost informal DADT policy. The difference would be that revealing your sexuality inadvertently would not get you discharged. And, if the discrimination is blatant enough, then the person could bring charges against the other person without fear of being "found out".
Click to expand...


It will be cracked down on when those sexual acts violate the UCMJ.

You're just rambling on about nothing. You don't have a clue what's going to happen and most of your suggestions aren't supported by actual data. I think your fairytale version of what's going to go down is far from what's going to happen in the real world.
 
apdst said:
It will be cracked down on when those sexual acts violate the UCMJ.

You're just rambling on about nothing. You don't have a clue what's going to happen and most of your suggestions aren't supported by actual data. I think your fairytale version of what's going to go down is far from what's going to happen in the real world.
Click to expand...

So ironic.
 
Your Star said:
So ironic.
Click to expand...

Don't you understand? Gays, when allowed to serve openly, will go around in fishnets and dry-hump their commanding officers. Because that's what "being open" means!

Also, there's no regulations against that. No dress code or behavioral codes or anything.
 
Your Star said:
So ironic.
Click to expand...

Oh? tell us exactly what changes are going to be made to military regulations and laws, because of the abolition of DADT. Be sure and support your contentions with some sorta data. Perhaps you can use your knowledge of DoD regulations to support your comments?

The housing issues that the DoD study says exist, are the same issues that I've predicted. I've been called a liar and a homophobe numerous times for my trouble, yet the DADT Bible proves my point. Care to one-up that one?

The DADT Bible also shows that 38% of the members of the Marine Corps say they will get out, if DADT is abolished. Can we really afford to lose 38% of the Marine Corps? Ready for national conscription?
 
apdst said:
It will be cracked down on when those sexual acts violate the UCMJ.

You're just rambling on about nothing. You don't have a clue what's going to happen and most of your suggestions aren't supported by actual data. I think your fairytale version of what's going to go down is far from what's going to happen in the real world.
Click to expand...

I would think in this day and age, most of those sex acts violate article 125 at least at times. So why are we not seeing this crackdown already?
 
Deuce said:
Don't you understand? Gays, when allowed to serve openly, will go around in fishnets and dry-hump their commanding officers. Because that's what "being open" means!

Also, there's no regulations against that. No dress code or behavioral codes or anything.
Click to expand...

That defines the Leftist argument. The facts don't support your ideas, so you go straight for the rediculous.
 
Redress said:
I would think in this day and age, most of those sex acts violate article 125 at least at times. So why are we not seeing this crackdown already?
Click to expand...

It already is. It isn't only applicable to homosexual sex.
 
apdst said:
It already is. It isn't only applicable to homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

No, but it will be more likely to happen when it is homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. One is viewed by most to be acceptable. Heck, many see it as if they could, they would. Two men getting together though (and yes, I believe the most issues will come from men, not women) is viewed as unacceptable, wrong, immoral, and/or icky by many straight men. They are much more likely to ignore a roommate having sex with a woman than they are to ignore a roommate having sex with a man. And, even if they did have issues with their roommate having sex with a woman in their room, they are much more likely to simply talk to the guy about the issue than to turn him in if they do not view the act as wrong, but just inappropriate. Not everyone will be like this, but many, who are likely to be uncomfortable with homosexuals in the first place, would do as I described.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom