• 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!

Gays in the military (its anonymous)

Openly gay personnel in the army?

  • Yes - im cool with that

    Votes: 54 79.4%
  • No - never again will i pick up the soap

    Votes: 9 13.2%
  • Other - explain

    Votes: 5 7.4%

  • Total voters
    68
And to elaborate on the answer to rivrrat's claims:

In post #112 in this thread:



In post #127 in this thread:



Conclusion from both posts on rivrrat's claim:
False claim.

False. :2wave:


Please cease this purposeless argument, gays will be distracted because they will be sexually attracted to the other males and would not be able to work in a clear mind.

The distraction carries on during normal, daily activities.
 
The statements you have quoted have come to describe the effect as a part of a collective, and not as individuals.

I believe you'll agree with me that generalizing in either way; either saying that all of the military's personnel will be effected by the distraction, or saying that all of the military's personnel would not be effected by the distraction, is naturally wrong.

However, all of the above is needless to say since you have chosen to ignore my words as pointed above, where I am clearly saying in the most obvious manner that it is not a question of able or unable(that's a direct quote), contrary to your accusation where I'm suggesting that it is a question of able or unable.
 
Last edited:
The statements you have quoted have come to describe the effect as a part of a collective, and not as individuals.

I believe you'll agree with me that generalizing in either way; either saying that all of the military's personnel will be effected by the distraction, or saying that all of the military's personnel would not be effected by the distraction, is naturally wrong.

However, all of the above is needless to say since you have chosen to ignore my words as pointed above, where I am clearly saying in the most obvious manner that it is not a question of able or unable(that's a direct quote), contrary to your accusation where I'm suggesting that it is a question of able or unable.


Odd, really?


Please cease this purposeless argument, gays will be distracted because they will be sexually attracted to the other males and would not be able to work in a clear mind.
 
Odd, really?
You're repeating yourself.
Apocalypse said:
It is not a question of "able" or "not able".
That is a military policy, effecting military personnel, AKA, soldiers.

If the military feels that this is a distraction, then it would take care of it.

As long as you have failed to debunk those words of mine, you are wasting both of our time and are only engaging in self-mockery.
 
You're repeating yourself.

As long as you have failed to debunk those words of mine, you are wasting both of our time and are only engaging in self-mockery.

I didn't think you were really that dense.

Those are YOUR words, dear. Not mine. YOU are the one who said they wouldn't be able to work. And then you go on to say it has nothing to do about 'able'. And even further accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I've now shown you a direct quote of YOURS where you state the very thing I said you stated. Seriously want to keep denying it?

And despite what you keep inanely repeating, I don't think the military has a policy that says 'if you're attracted to someone, you aren't able to do your job'. :roll:

Speaking of military policy, that's what we're talking about changing. Jesus. How about paying attention?
 
Last edited:
Wait !!!! :stop:

Gays are already in the Military. They support and protect me and my Country. I support Gays in the Military, because I am Patriotic and I appreciate how Gay Military men and women protect me and my country. If you don't support gays in the Military then you are unamerican because you don't support protection and freedom for our Country. God Bless Gays in the Military.
 
I didn't think you were really that dense.
Really. That's good to know.

I don't think you're dense.
Those are YOUR words, dear. Not mine.
Correct, but those are my words misunderstood by you.
YOU are the one who said they wouldn't be able to work. And then you go on to say it has nothing to do about 'able'. And even further accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I've now shown you a direct quote of YOURS where you state the very thing I said you stated. Seriously want to keep denying it?
Keep denying means that I started denying at some point of time.
That is fortunately false.
As to "my words" that you keep talking about, you may refer yourself to post #177 in this thread, the one you've chosen to ignore, where I have carefully took my time to elaborate and explain to you why what I said is not the way you perceived it, mentioning the fact that you have completely ignored my other words, where I am stating that it is not an issue of able or unable.
And despite what you keep inanely repeating, I don't think the military has a policy that says 'if you're attracted to someone, you aren't able to do your job'. :roll:
Me neither.
There is a military policy that intends to prevent any distractions for the soldiers from doing their roles, though.
Speaking of military policy, that's what we're talking about changing. Jesus. How about paying attention?
How about it?
Yes, there is going to be a change in the US military policy, the one that forbids a sexual openness of gay soldiers in the army.
That hasn't got much to do with the other policy that is not going to be changed, the one that exists to prevent unnecessary distractions.
 
Good reasons to say NO to gays in the military:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ&feature"]YouTube- 'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat'[/ame]

:rofl
 
What about the females who get raped by straight macho dudes?

Are they supposed to get attracted to each other or be singled out for housing? Not sure what you're getting at.
 
I can't see the issue with allowing it.

If there is one, after the (stupid) military laws against such are changed, whoever made it should be counseled and/or moved to another command and/or kicked out.
 
I think the "Don't ask don't tell" should be repealed.. In the mean time, I think it would make a great draft dodger. :cool:
 
It's time for the people of this planet to stop letting our petty differences seperate us.

If person is black, who cares?

I don't!

If a person is gay, who cares?

I don't!

If a person is from a Israeli, Arab, French, German, English, Irish, ect ... who cares?

I don't!

If we are going to overcome the hate, we have to stand together, ignore petty differences and become one people under god.
 
It's time for the people of this planet to stop letting our petty differences seperate us.

If person is black, who cares?

I don't!

If a person is gay, who cares?

I don't!

If a person is from a Israeli, Arab, French, German, English, Irish, ect ... who cares?

I don't!






If we are going to overcome the hate, we have to stand together, ignore petty differences and become one people under god.

Noble thoughts and I agree with them.. only problem is that people aways need someone to hate. Most of the hate comes from about 15% of the people but they are fanatics and their hate makes up for their numbers.:(
 
Back
Top Bottom