• 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!

Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

How long before you et. al. understand that it has nothing to do with all that and that these talking points are just the typical Libbos insults towards people who don't agree with them?

I should have known it would be impossible to have a rational discussion with a Liberal on this subject.
So far you have not answered one of my questions. Not one.
 
Why do you think I hate gays? Have I said that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military? I didn't? I didn't think so. How about you ask me what I think of the idea, before you automatically assume that since I'm not in lockstep with you, that I hate gays.
Well right in that statement you prove what I believe is correct. You are bigoted against them and don't want them around so that seems to make me correct.
 
Well right in that statement you prove what I believe is correct. You are bigoted against them and don't want them around so that seems to make me correct.

And how do you get that out of that post? :lamo
 
Did i say anything about the troops. I said military did I not? YOU need to upgrade the reading for understanding skills.

Who do you think makes up the military? Most of the men and women in out military believe in what they are doing and believe that a strong military is a necessity. If you find the military repugnant, you must also believe that anyone who serves in the military is repugnant.
 
Its pbvious by your comment that you have never seerved in the military or you would know about troops morale ans command readiness.........Happy troops aew much betteer in combat........They don't need the gay thing disturbing them.......

Funny...though....Navy.....but most of the Military are not the bigots that you think that they are. Most are fine with gay people serving....they aren't disturbed by it at all.

Its a new world Navy.....and your anti-gay bigotry isn't welcome many places anymore.....including the military.
 
Funny...though....Navy.....but most of the Military are not the bigots that you think that they are. Most are fine with gay people serving....they aren't disturbed by it at all.

Its a new world Navy.....and your anti-gay bigotry isn't welcome many places anymore.....including the military.

Until, there are some reports of actions gainst gay soldiers, then they'll be bigoted homophobes, in addition to brainwashed murderers.

Wait until a republican is elected in '12 and something bad happens to a gay soldier. Then, we'll be hearing all the usual hatin' on the military, like when Bush was in office.
 
Will, it appears your cheese done slid clear off your cracker. You really think a military shower is comparable to posting one's .... seriously, I can't even dignify that thought with a re-type.

as soon as you begin advocating forcing female servicemembers to strip down in front of the males, let me know.

............. Will. You're against gays serving openly in the military?

:shrug: not that it matters any more - the decision has been made and we follow orders

but generally, yes - at least and especially in the combat arms. I thought that for such units, DADT was an excellent compromise which allowed those who wanted to serve to do so, while protecting the units from the added stress that the introduction of sexual tension would bring.

Why, indeed.

why betty? why wouldn't you expose yourself in front of a mixed audience? would it be better if that audience instead was generally made up solely of 18-22 year old males?

Well, since you edited out my quote, I don't feel the need to answer you.

BD: this, as near as I can tell, is our correspondence on this thread. if you can tell me where I failed to address something you raised, do so and I will do my best to answer you. But the long quote you cited above was my response to redress.
 
He does have a point here.
Finding the military repugnant is far different than finding particular people a problem. The military is an organization. He does not have a point.
 
Who do you think makes up the military? Most of the men and women in out military believe in what they are doing and believe that a strong military is a necessity. If you find the military repugnant, you must also believe that anyone who serves in the military is repugnant.
That is fine they believe in what they are doing. That is up to them and I don't have a problem with them. It is the entire nature of the military as a whole. It has nothing to do with it's members. Why would I have to be believe that the people that do as they are told by the the organization are repugnant. That is an extrapolation that does not fit. Sorry try again.
 
How long before you et. al. understand that it has nothing to do with all that and that these talking points are just the typical Libbos insults towards people who don't agree with them?

I should have known it would be impossible to have a rational discussion with a Liberal on this subject.

no. just ones who insist that disagreement with them must be bigotry.

redress said:
There is a potential argument that claiming a group of people are not fit to serve and will disrupt military readiness, especially when this argument flies in the face of all research on the topic, is in fact bigoted. It is certainly stupid.

there is a big difference between "will reduce good order, discipline, and unit cohesion" and "not fit to serve" given that I support DADT, i obviously already think they are fit to serve, and merely wish to find a way for them to do so that doesn't involve anyone else suffering.

frankly i find the need to reach for the "bigot" card to be indicative of someone's intelligence. If that is truly the best one can come up with, then they are no better than the "Tea Party Just Opposes Obama Because He's Black" types. It seeks to make an ad hominem smear against one's opponents rather than actually meet or negate their arguments.
 
Last edited:
no. just ones who insist that disagreement with them must be bigotry.



there is a big difference between "will reduce good order, discipline, and unit cohesion" and "not fit to serve" given that I support DADT, i obviously already think they are fit to serve, and merely wish to find a way for them to do so that doesn't involve anyone else suffering.

frankly i find the need to reach for the "bigot" card to be indicative of someone's intelligence. If that is truly the best one can come up with, then they are no better than the "Tea Party Just Opposes Obama Because He's Black" types.

To pick on one select group within the military because of sexual orientation is bigotry. How blind are you. I am not calling you a bigot because you disagree with me. I am calling you one because of what you are defending. So you might want to try reading what your type if you don't want to be seen as having a bigots viewpoint.
 
Finding the military repugnant is far different than finding particular people a problem. The military is an organization. He does not have a point.

The military is the people in the military. I cannot speak for other countries militaries, but the US military is made up of some of the absolute best people you could ever hope to meet.
 
there is a big difference between "will reduce good order, discipline, and unit cohesion" and "not fit to serve" given that I support DADT, i obviously already think they are fit to serve, and merely wish to find a way for them to do so that doesn't involve anyone else suffering.

frankly i find the need to reach for the "bigot" card to be indicative of someone's intelligence. If that is truly the best one can come up with, then they are no better than the "Tea Party Just Opposes Obama Because He's Black" types. It seeks to make an ad hominem smear against one's opponents rather than actually meet or negate their arguments.

So it is ok for people to suffer, as long as it isn't you. Got it, that sounds so much less bigoted.
 
I quoted a post of yours, but I quoted it before you edited my quote out. Other than that, it's nothing I care enough about to pursue.
 
To pick on one select group within the military because of sexual orientation is bigotry. How blind are you. I am not calling you a bigot because you disagree with me. I am calling you one because of what you are defending. So you might want to try reading what your type if you don't want to be seen as having a bigots viewpoint.

katiegrrl, why do you want to kill members of the military?

see, i want DADT to remain in place because removing it will cause increased stress on the combat units that can least afford it; which inevitably results in the loss of limb and life.

So, since you oppose my means, you must obviously oppose my ends, right? Ergo, you must be bigoted against veterans, and want them to suffer and die.






THAT, is the failure in logic that you are engaging in here - you are mistaking someone's means for their ends, and in particular you are mistaking opposition to your means with opposition to your ends. You want gays to serve openly because you don't want them to be discriminated against, ergo you assume anyone who disagrees with you must want them to be discriminated against. But that no more follows than the above claim that you hate and want servicemembers to die.

You will find in debate you will do much better if you do not attempt to engage in ad hominem fallacies, or attack the motivations of those you find on the other side.













NOW, as to "picking on select groups". The military is not the business world. We are not regular government service. We are not like your job. We have a brutal task and a brutal task master, one who kills us without mercy or hesitation if we fail, and often even when we succeed. Hence, when we hire, we don't care anything about you - other than whether or not you increase or decrease our ability to do our job with the least loss of our lives. The military "discriminates" against the very short, the very tall, the very fat, the very stupid, those with asthma, those who are color blind, those who are too young, those who are too old, and yes, those who are homosexual. None of these "discriminatory policies" are due to bigotry or hatred or anything of the like - we don't have some kind of fear of the asthmatic - they are due solely and only to our natural interest in seeing that we are able to do our dangerous job with the least loss of our own lives.

that requires a level of intimacy and cohesion in our combat units that is likely unlike any workplace you have ever known. we live together, eat together, drink together, s--t together, piss together, f--k together, bathe together, sleep together, work together, cry together, bleed together, love each other deeply, and know each other in and out. men who would abandon their marriage vows will unhesitatingly risk their lives for their fellow - because that bond is more powerful than their marriage. This is necessary to do our job. When it's 'Ski out there, lying in the open, screaming, you run to him whether or not there is fire, whether or not there are explosions, whether or not there are IED's.... because it's Ski. I knew the body language of my squad mates better than I knew the body language of my wife. You all holler about how it's unfair for me to compare the situation to naked pictures? sure, some of my buddies have pictures of me runnin' round with my tallywacker flapping - because that's just how it is in the grunts. you are more intimate with each other there than you have been with any other group you know, and one of the ways you do so is by joking with each other in the most intimate and offensive ways you can think of. :) everyone see's everyone naked, and you will feel the totality of each others' body pressed up against you when it's cold. when you joke around, you joke around with an ease and intimacy that would never be allowed anyone else... but because you have that level of intimacy and cohesion, nobody get's offended and everyone things it's hilarious when two guys 69 each other on the table at the armory at 0430 to demonstrate how they feel the Corps is ****ing them in the face by getting them up this early for no good purpose. It's just expected when you find out that the New Guy has the amazing ability to pull his ball-sack over a full-sized dinner plate... and you immediately force him to demonstrate this mutant power to everyone else in the platoon. Bonds are built because there are no boundaries. remember when that video of one of those british princes came out, and it was him joking back and forth with one of his platoon mates, calling him racial names? you could tell who knew what they were talking about based on who thought that was offensive - because that's just life in the grunts, man. i can look at charles and explain how he's getting 0200 watch because he's as black as my pubic hair, and he'll have natural camouflage that way because Charles knows that A) he can abuse me right back and B) i love him, and when the **** goes down i will never, ever, ever leave him. and if he falls we will get drunk on the anniversary, and tell tales of him, and through us he will live on - and he will do the same for me. good, successful squads and platoons have their own personalities, corporate personhoods that are made up of the multiple beating hearts of the individual pieces woven into one corporate soul. they have to have this, because only when I am able to take the pain for Ski can I help him when Jones goes down; because I know that he and Jones came in together through bootcamp... and because that is the only way that Ski can get back up the next day and go back out.

I have now lost more Marines to suicide now than I have to the enemy. It's a bitter pill. In EVERY case they have been separated from their unit when it happened. Because when you lose the cohesion, intimacy, support, and trust in each other that you have in a good unit... many can't handle the power of the brutal taskmaster we face. Three of those losses were because of the buddies they had lost... no one was there to dilute their pain through shared corporate personhood, and so they were overwhelmed.

introducing open homosexuals reduces that ease, reduces that intimacy, and reduces that unit cohesion. It makes us less able to function as a single body, a single heart, a single corporate soul. It makes us less able to meet that brutal task masters' demands, and the price he demands for failure is high.

and that's why I think repealing DADT is a bad idea. not because I care one way or the other about homosexuals or homosexuality - but because I have one iron standard that i judge everything by: will this help or hurt the ability of those small units to function well? You could be an 85-pound blind idiot, and if you will help them to survive, I want you in; you could be Rambo and Jesus Christ rolled together, and if you hurt their ability to succeed and survive, then I want you "discriminated" against. Because I don't care if others feel equally treated, loved, affirmed by society and their fathers, or whathaveyou. I care first far-away and foremost only about the ability of that small unit to succeed and survive; and for that they need an intimate level of unit cohesion that precludes the possibility of sexual tension.
 
Last edited:
I quoted a post of yours, but I quoted it before you edited my quote out. Other than that, it's nothing I care enough about to pursue.

well i'm still confused about what you are talking about.
 
So it is ok for people to suffer, as long as it isn't you. Got it, that sounds so much less bigoted.

:shrug: there is no everybody wins 1000% option. that's why DADT was a good compromise - it allowed homosexuals who wanted to to serve, without demanding that others suffer for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom