• 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!

70% of military believe lifting gay ban would have positive influence

Republic_Of_Public said:
I could say that back to you. You're referring to an exchange a little way back.




I'm not. I'm just an ordinary bloke. And if anything I don't want to be put on a pedestal.


Example:

ANTI-CAPITALISM STUDIES
Raymond Williams, Gay History (Rectums of our Times, you could say),
Anti-Globalization, and much more..
www.studiesinanti-capitalism.net


...And that was listed as an AD on the Google search page on the way to this site!!
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered the question as to why you think homosexuals should have fewer rights than you do. You conveniently cut that out of the quote. Are you going to keep dodging?
 
...why you think homosexuals should have fewer rights than you do.
Click to expand...

That's not the way I'd have framed it but the over-validation of sexual deviancy can be a slippery slope to take. How far would it go?

Utah has it about right: Utah governor: No special rights for gay people | News Story on 365gay.com


I don't know about America but remember that it was only decriminalised here in England at about the same time the Beatles put out Sgt. Pepper. Historically, it's a brand new acceptance and not universal across the world.
 
Last edited:
Republic_Of_Public said:
That's not the way I'd have framed it but the over-validation of sexual deviancy can be a slippery slope to take. How far would it go?

Utah has it about right: Utah governor: No special rights for gay people | News Story on 365gay.com



I don't know about America but remember that it was only decriminalised here in England at about the same time the Beatles put out Sgt. Pepper. It's a brand new acceptance and not universal across the world.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't look to Utah as being the benchmark for a forward moving society.
 
disneydude said:
More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent
Click to expand...

positive, mixed, or nonexistant? not to accuse you of confirmation bias, but that's like saying that 85% of women are raped, beaten, traumatized, murdered, or flirted with by men. the question isn't the total number, it's what the breakdown is. even I say the results will be mixed.

Paschendale said:
Yep, we can find studies that will produce any results we want. How about we just 1) stop discriminating, and 2) respect our military enough to believe they're not afraid of the gay cooties.
Click to expand...

disneydude said:
It just goes to show that the homophobes who think that the military are as bigoted as they are.....are completely wrong.
Click to expand...

:roll: yeah. the only reason anyone could honestly look at the same facts and come to a differing conclusion than yourselves is because they are evil. :roll:
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
If a black guy in a unit acts like a 'gansgsta' then he'd be disciplined.

Army rules governing behaviour are typically there for discipline, morale and order. And as I say, if the issue is that important, then let the soldiers decide. Academic what I think after that.
Click to expand...

I have a better question for you, which is very much related to gays serving openly.

There are still military personnel that are completely uncomfortable serving with guys who date interracially. I knew some Marines personally who felt this way. So, should it be okay for a unit to eject a person (whatever race) who dates outside of their race?

Or maybe you think it should be okay for units to refuse to allow a guy in who isn't Christian, whether the person is Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, or atheist? How bout units that don't want to have Mormons in them?

It comes down to the fact that most servicemembers are able to serve alongside gays with no problems, even if they know the gay guy/girl is gay. And those who don't think they can, need to either suck it up and follow orders that involve working alongside someone they are uncomfortable being around, like pretty much every other person in the military has to do at one point in their career or another, or get out.
 
Unless these Christian or Muslim soldiers are up to anything particularly repellent, it's not really the same comparison. I put it as close as words can take me in post 27.

I bear no actual animosity towards gays in general (ambivilence at best as their behaviour is typically consentual). I just think what they get up to is disgusting.


(And given that I'm screamed at for being 'hateful', it would only be for lefties, politicians and professional gays bent on even the likes of schoolkids being fed gay propaganda, etc.)
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Unless these Christian or Muslim soldiers are up to anything particularly repellent, it's not really the same comparison. I put it as close as words can take me in post 27.

I bear no actual animosity towards gays in general (ambivilence at best as their behaviour is typically consentual). I just think what they get up to is disgusting.


(And given that I'm screamed at for being 'hateful', it would only be for lefties, politicians and professional gays bent on even the likes of schoolkids being fed gay propaganda, etc.)
Click to expand...

Your attitude is no different than those who thought that whites shouldn't serve with blacks because they found blacks to be "disgusting"...you may want to believe that you are different, but your behavior is the same.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Your attitude is no different than those who thought that whites shouldn't serve with blacks because they found blacks to be "disgusting"...you may want to believe that you are different, but your behavior is the same.
Click to expand...

no, you are mistaking behavior with identity. i find (for example) colonoscopies 'disgusting'; that doesn't mean that i think doctors are 'disgusting'.
 
cpwill said:
no, you are mistaking behavior with identity. i find (for example) colonoscopies 'disgusting'; that doesn't mean that i think doctors are 'disgusting'.
Click to expand...

Except that being homosexual is not about the behaviors that someone finds "disgusting". It is about the attraction a member of one sex has for members of their same sex. Attraction is not an action or a behavior. The behavior that most find disgusting is only assumed to be being practiced by those who claim homosexuality.

Also, performing a colonoscopy is not anything like sexual behaviors. Sexual behaviors, especially those that are generally considering "disgusting", are practiced by both homosexuals and heterosexuals, but not all homosexuals or heterosexuals choose to participate in such behaviors. Colonoscopies are a procedure done to measure a person's health in a particular area, and a doctor doing a colonoscopy is not choosing to do so for his own pleasure or the pleasure of the patient (hopefully). Most doctors choose to do so only when they feel it is necessary.

And, finding such a procedure "disgusting" does not make it illegal or even immoral. In fact, no one would ever make it against even a military rule to perform a colonoscopy, let alone discharge doctors because they might perform a colonoscopy.
 
* Source from a Los Angeles liberal.
 
An example of human stupidity is when liberals blindly smear those who disagree with homosexuality as "hateful" and "bigoted."
 
Wake said:
An example of human stupidity is when liberals blindly smear those who disagree with homosexuality as "hateful" and "bigoted."
Click to expand...

Funny....that's exactly what they said about those who hated blacks...oops sorry..."Disagreed" with blacks.
 
disneydude said:
Funny....that's exactly what they said about those who hated blacks...oops sorry..."Disagreed" with blacks.
Click to expand...

Oh look, another random and silly comment. Golly I bet it's fun.

Tell you what. Today is "Gift a Troll" day. I'll help you out a bit with your viewpoint, savvy? Lemme take a few minutes and I swear I'll find a link with a better % to get more people on your side. OH! I found a few; there's about 8 of 'em. If you wish, I can post you them so you can edit out your link and put an even better one in. You dig?
 
Wake said:
Oh look, another random and silly comment. Golly I bet it's fun.

Tell you what. Today is "Gift a Troll" day. I'll help you out a bit with your viewpoint, savvy? Lemme take a few minutes and I swear I'll find a link with a better % to get more people on your side. OH! I found a few; there's about 8 of 'em. If you wish, I can post you them so you can edit out your link and put an even better one in. You dig?
Click to expand...

Please do......post a link that references the actual Pentagon poll that shows different results. This should be good.
 
cpwill said:
no, you are mistaking behavior with identity. i find (for example) colonoscopies 'disgusting'; that doesn't mean that i think doctors are 'disgusting'.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not a behavior.
 
Last edited:
It's not a question of that at all, as I said. The criteria aren't matched case-to-case. That's why, for you, I 'haven't explained'.

And besides, it's hard to take that question seriously when I have this picture in my mind of someone trying to tower above me saying 'answer me, you will answer'!
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Homosexuality is not a behavior.
Click to expand...

Ah. You think people are "born" such. That they don't decide upon that behavior based on influences. How then would you creatively explain those who lived gay for over 20 years and then changed their behavior because they found it disgusting? Perhaps you'd say they're born so that the gay effect lasts 20 years and then inexplicably wanes as some sort of genetic master plan?
 
Wake said:
Ah. You think people are "born" such. That they don't decide upon that behavior based on influences. How then would you creatively explain those who lived gay for over 20 years and then changed their behavior because they found it disgusting? Perhaps you'd say they're born so that the gay effect lasts 20 years and then inexplicably wanes as some sort of genetic master plan?
Click to expand...

You are in fact confusing gay activity(sex with a person of the same sex) with being gay(enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others of the same sex). You can change behavior, but there is no real evidence you can change your orientation.

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality
 
Wake said:
Ah. You think people are "born" such. That they don't decide upon that behavior based on influences. How then would you creatively explain those who lived gay for over 20 years and then changed their behavior because they found it disgusting? Perhaps you'd say they're born so that the gay effect lasts 20 years and then inexplicably wanes as some sort of genetic master plan?
Click to expand...

Those people are probably lying to themselves.
 
Wake said:
Ah. You think people are "born" such. That they don't decide upon that behavior based on influences. How then would you creatively explain those who lived gay for over 20 years and then changed their behavior because they found it disgusting? Perhaps you'd say they're born so that the gay effect lasts 20 years and then inexplicably wanes as some sort of genetic master plan?
Click to expand...

The same ways that some of those "heterosexuals" "changed their minds", either they didn't actually know which sex they were attracted to, they had a bad experience, or they were convinced that some of their sexual practices were disgusting. Or maybe they are choosing what they want. Doesn't prove that everyone can choose who they are attracted to. I've only been attracted to certain types of men. That hasn't changed since high school. It may change in the future, but I doubt it will be because I consciencely choose to be attracted to different types of men or even to women.

Ever wonder why some people can play with mud or bugs when they are little but find it "ugh, yucky" when they get older? I doubt that anyone consciencely chooses to suddenly start thinking of bugs as "ugh, yucky".

Besides all this, it doesn't matter if they choose to be attracted to certain people or not. If this were the case, then we could easily argue that people who are in interracial relationships should not be allowed to be in the military because someone might find such a behavior to be "disgusting" and they can easily just "choose" to be attracted to people within their own race.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
How many of a certain type of person felt like taking the survey?




Is it pressure from soldiers which throws this issue into the spotlight? Or is it from the usual political suspects who, whenever they gain their 'last territorial demand' always go on to demand more anyway?


Why not poll all troops and see what they think, region by region and state by state. Those companies and platoons who want gays to join their ranks can have them and those for whom homosexuality is distasteful can reject them.

Simple really.
Click to expand...

Or, we can all remember that segregation is illegal in the united states and move on.
 
A sexual deviance or perversion is a different marker of identity than being black or Asian, people not usually considered freaks of nature.

For a start, they can reproduce.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
A sexual deviance or perversion is a different marker of identity than being black or Asian, people not usually considered freaks of nature.

For a start, they can reproduce.
Click to expand...

Sorry....but not all heteros CAN reproduce and many gays can....Once again proving that your short-side backwards way of thinking is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom