• 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!

Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

They believe that striving to implement their ideological view of how the world should be is more important than whether or not it can actually be applied in a real-life situation.

Yeah that same ideology that said that blacks would not be a detriment to the military or that woman can serve was soo backwards to what you believe.

What a shame if gays could serve openly, that would just be the end of the military because as we all know military personnel can't handle any changes right? :roll:
 
He became an activist and violated policy.
He is unfit to be an Officer in the US military.




Doesn't matter what he was being an activist for.
 
He is unfit to be an Officer in the US military.

Yep just like Blacks used to be activists. I mean blacks can't be officers can they?

Tell me Triad, does the fact that the military used to think blacks were second class people incapable of leading people mean it is true?
 
Yeah just like that that's right.:roll:


He fails to follow orders, he does not represent his role porperly, he is a detriment to the chain of command.

His conduct is unbecoming of an officer in the United States Army and grounds for his dismissal from service.

He knew the rules, he knowingly broke them, his conduct is unfit for an officer in the US military..

He can decide to do whatever he wants as a civilian..He cannot do whatever he wants as an officer in the US Army. Why we call the G.I.'s.

He got what he deserved.

.........
Continue trying to use emotional responses and such..it makes no difference.


Race is not a lifestyle choice.


((Its usually really easy to tel who has been in the military and who has not by the responses to things like this. Those who think this officer has any right whatsoever to do what he did has never been in the US military. (yes its obvious)))
 
Last edited:
First off, if you think that repealing DADT is going to result in a coming out party for all the gays in the military, you're navie to say the least. The fact of the matter is that many soldiers, though granted not all of them, view grown men who sodomize each other as unnatural freaks. Maybe this isn't an "evolved" opinion, but it's just reality.

I never implied it was going to result in a "coming out party." Some of them will be open about it, and some will prefer to remain closeted for whatever reason. So what?

G.I. Joe said:
There are many situations in the Army where you're in close quarters and being close to an openly gay man would be akward. There was a guy in my basic training who had a habit of staring at guy's penises in the shower. Finally a dude called him out on it and he ended up getting the living **** kicked out of him.

Ah, once again the horror of having another dude stare at your junk while you're serving in a dangerous job that sends you into war zones. :roll:

If that's your biggest worry about serving in the military, you have it pretty well. And at any rate, that isn't a good enough reason to ban gays from serving openly. Besides, they can still check out your package whether they're open about their sexuality or not.

G.I. Joe said:
There are gay men in all branches of the service. Some are pretty much known, some are completely secret. The fact is it does not serve anyone's interest to have them broadcast their sexuality. This is just another instance of liberals trying to shove the gay lifestyle down people's throats and make them accept it as legitimate and respectable.

"Broadcast their sexuality"? Yes, if gays are allowed to serve openly, I'm sure you'll see drag queens having gay pride parades through the barracks. :roll:

Why is it OK for heterosexuals to "broadcast their sexuality" in the military?

G.I. Joe said:
Liberals are making the same mistake with this issue that they do with everything else. They believe that striving to implement their ideological view of how the world should be is more important than whether or not it can actually be applied in a real-life situation. I honestly believe that liberalism is a mental disorder.

So you don't actually have a reason for opposing this...you only oppose it because it's what Duh Librhuls want.
 
Like I posted back a page it made a difference.

Take a bunch of homophobic young men hopped up on testosterone and typical tough guy army bull****. Now throw a few homosexuals into the mix.


Is that any more different thatn how whites used to feel about blacks?

YES, there comes a time when things need to change.
 
Race is not a lifestyle choice.

Neither is being gay for most.

But hey you justify beating up gays and discriminating against them all you want.
 
Now I'm justifying beating up homosexuals....:roll:

You can't argue this because you have no argument to make that has any bearing on the situation at hand.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing at all to do with my point.

To answer your question no, but this issue is not the same.


The anti-DADT crowd has been comparing apples to oranges all through this thread.
 
The anti-DADT crowd has been comparing apples to oranges all through this thread.

My problem is they seem to think it did not work in the past. It did work right or wrong.

I think now with the attitudes of young people changing it may no longer be needed. This does not diminish the fact it helped back in the 80's, again right or wrong.
 
My problem is they seem to think it did not work in the past. It did work right or wrong.

I think now with the attitudes of young people changing it may no longer be needed. This does not diminish the fact it helped back in the 80's, again right or wrong.

As you pointed out in an earlier post, people--males and females--who are in their late teens and early 20's are, generally speaking, homophobic. Add in all those type A personalities that are a majority in the military and it's might spell trouble.
 
Yep just like Blacks used to be activists. I mean blacks can't be officers can they?

Tell me Triad, does the fact that the military used to think blacks were second class people incapable of leading people mean it is true?
Are we really comparing skin color to the lifestyle of a sodomite?
 
Are we really comparing skin color to the lifestyle of a sodomite?

We are comparing the FACT that at one time prejudice dominated thinking of some people in the military. The same is true today with gays.

I have NO DOUBT that if DADT policy is removed and gays are allowed to serve openly the military will be just as strong then as it is today. Yes, there will be some problems with transition, but it isn't impossible.

Unless of course you believe the entire military is just one big bunch of gay hating homophobic people, which I don't believe the military to be.
 
Service in the military is not a right. There are physical, mental and societal considerations which can disqualify one from service. Physical: hearing/vision standards. Mental: record of anxiety disorder/shizophrenia. Societal: Felony Convictions.

Rules and regulations governing the military are to promote good order and disipline in support of readiness. Anything that has a negative effect on readiness and to some degree morale, are subject to regulation. We are discussing this because there have been problems concerning homosexuals in the military and their effect on readiness. The current policy allows homosexuals to serve if they can shut up and not get an erection in the showers. I have never had a desire to know every sexual exploit of the people I have served with. I have no problem with the current policy.

People should be allowed some degree of modesty and privacy which is severly lacking in the military already. I do not want my daughter showering with a company of virile male marines (no offense). I do not want to shower with a company of homosexuals (no offense). I do not want to shower regularly with a company of females (no offense); I may not survive it for long. These feelings are not mine alone; I like to think they are the feelings of most people. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Does this mean we need separate hetero male, hetero female, homo male and homo female heads? Seems like it does to me. Now put that on a 300' or smaller vessel which already has shower hours because of water production limitations. The entire main deck would be heads and then there's the officer quarters.
 
Service in the military is not a right. There are physical, mental and societal considerations which can disqualify one from service. Physical: hearing/vision standards. Mental: record of anxiety disorder/shizophrenia. Societal: Felony Convictions.

Yep, and at one time there was a regulation that said only whites could be officers. Regulations change.

I have never had a desire to know every sexual exploit of the people I have served with. I have no problem with the current policy.

Here's a hint, most people that are gay don't want to talk about their sex life either just like most heterosexuals don't like to talk about what they do in bed.

I do not want to shower with a company of homosexuals (no offense).

Under the DADT policy a person most likely already has done that.


Does this mean we need separate hetero male, hetero female, homo male and homo female heads?

No, it doesn't.
 
Yep, and at one time there was a regulation that said only whites could be officers. Regulations change.



Here's a hint, most people that are gay don't want to talk about their sex life either just like most heterosexuals don't like to talk about what they do in bed.



Under the DADT policy a person most likely already has done that.




No, it doesn't.

Why did you skip over Blackdog's post? You're not going to call him a homophobe, bigot and a **** sucker, like the rest of us who are, "nuts"?
 
Last edited:
Why did you skip over Blackdog's post? You're not going to call him a homophobe, bigot and a **** sucker, like the rest of us who are, "nuts"?

In defense of "Extra" he did not call anyone that. He was only making the point he does not think the military now days is made up of such men and women. I agree that the modern military is not made up of such people.

The only place I disagree with him is in that DADT never worked, I saw it work. I know it worked.

As for it's usefulness now? It depends on how the solders feel in the military now. I suspect it would not be as big a problem now days as it was then.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have not had any real issue with it.

Would I want to shower with gay men? No. Would I suck it up and move on? Yes. (No pun intended)

Oh man, terms like that take on a whole new meaning, lol.
 
Are we really comparing skin color to the lifestyle of a sodomite?
It would appear so. Do you think being gay is a choice? If so, when did you choose to be straight and why would anyone choose to be gay?
 
The only place I disagree with him is in that DADT never worked, I saw it work. I know it worked.

I didn't said it NEVER worked, I am saying that it is an obsolete policy IMO and I think the military could handle the change just fine.

In the 80s, that was a different story. Gays were under attack by people claiming that they were the cause of AIDS or that you could get AIDS just by casually touching a gay or being near them.

Times have changed IMO, and I think this would be a change for the better in the military.
 
Why did you skip over Blackdog's post? You're not going to call him a homophobe, bigot and a **** sucker, like the rest of us who are, "nuts"?

I don't think you are nuts, I think you have an antiquated view of gays serving in the military is all.
 
I don't think you are nuts, I think you have an antiquated view of gays serving in the military is all.

I don't think my views are antiquated at all. IMO, they firmly in line with the reality that is the United States military, today.
 
Once, white soldiers made a lot of noises about having to shower with black soldiers. Now, military culture expects you to learn to deal with people of other races. If you have racist tenancies, it is expected that you will keep them to yourself and if you fail at this, you have failed to adapt. Oddly, this works better these days then claiming to be insane or drug use if you want out of the military.

Sexual assault and harassment are large issues in military culture. You cannot make it through a year of service without many mandatory briefings on the subject. For the most part these briefings are a joke. Such events still happen in giant numbers. I can lay a very personnel testimony to this a a medic - I have seen more rape kits get used then you frankly want to know about. I have also seen most of them swept under the rug, and known of a lot more that have gone unreported.

Someone always knows. Bases in theater are a small place; if it happens, it happens because it is permitted.

In case you are missing it, I am talking about heterosexual rape by one soldier of another soldier in a WAR ZONE.

I have seen one homosexual rape come through my doors. I am a little lost as to why one is any more ugly then the other. Maybe the issue is rape and what ever is wrong with military culture that makes it permissible, regardless of regulation and mandatory awareness programs.

If nothing else, it goes to show that an armed society is not necessarily a polite society. Ever read about a soldier finding their rapist later and shooting them with the firearm and ammo we are all required to have over there?

Speaking as a heterosexual soldier who has served with and even showered with "gay" soldiers, I think people who spend a lot of time thinking about this subject are a bunch of closet cases. Please find a more important issue then imagining being uncomfortable in a shower because "gays might be there". I promise, if you have ever showered in a public shower "gays were there", and no regulations are going to change this.

Look, what is more important, that someone is ON YOUR SIDE and OTHER PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU or your prejudice?

Darwin says suck up your prejudice and worry about the mission. If you can't do that, I would prefer you stay home. Failing that, please tell me so I can do my best to make sure you are as far from me as possible.
 
Speaking as a heterosexual soldier who has served with and even showered with "gay" soldiers, I think people who spend a lot of time thinking about this subject are a bunch of closet cases. Please find a more important issue then imagining being uncomfortable in a shower because "gays might be there". I promise, if you have ever showered in a public shower "gays were there", and no regulations are going to change this.

That's where I believe the whole school of thought goes awry. It is automatically assumed that the problem is going to be with straight male soldiers in close proximity with gay male soldiers. What's going to happen when a gay soldier wants seclusion from his/her straight comrades? Or, when straight females refuse to share billets and latrines with gay female soldiers? Don't say it can't happen, because it's far from a impossibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom