• 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

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?
That logic is beyond flawed. No, I didn't "choose" to be straight. You think that just because one sexual orientation is natural that the other must be as well?

How about pedophiles? When did they choose to like kids? And if it is something that they don't choose(which many believe this is the case), shouldn't they have equal rights?
 
And you know this factually, how?




I think you are speculating.

I'll try to find the interview after while (a quick Google search didn't bring it up). But the CEO of Blackwater was asked this a couple years ago, and specifically said that they don't discriminate against gays in their security units.
 
That logic is beyond flawed. No, I didn't "choose" to be straight. You think that just because one sexual orientation is natural that the other must be as well?

Then why would anyone choose to be gay? And when did "natural" become the same as "morally right" anyway? Wearing clothes isn't natural.

G.I. Joe said:
How about pedophiles? When did they choose to like kids? And if it is something that they don't choose(which many believe this is the case), shouldn't they have equal rights?

As long as they obey the law, yes, of course they should have equal rights.
 
Then why would anyone choose to be gay? And when did "natural" become the same as "morally right" anyway? Wearing clothes isn't natural.



As long as they obey the law, yes, of course they should have equal rights.
ROFLMAO...............Molesting kids isn't against the law? You're a special kind of dude.
 
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.

You end up with the same issues that exist with providing privacy for all soldiers. You don't have to be gay or homophobic to desire privacy. When it is possible, the military does its best to provide this. When it is not, this goes in the suck it up category. Sometimes, you are asked to go without sleep for days at a time, wear dirty clothes, kill people, and watch your friends die. If this "suck it up" concept is confusing to you, there is a VFW chapter near you and I am sure they will be happy to help.

When shower facilities are limited, accommodating female and male soldiers cause issues. Sometimes this is dealt with with shower schedules. Some small outposts do not have adequate facilities and female soldiers are just not posted there. These are practical solutions to practical problems.

I think you miss the point of inclusion in the military;

Rome did not offer slaves a route to citizenship through military service because they respected their rights - they needed the bodies. The racist old boys club of the American military caste did not include black soldiers because they liked them - they did this because they needed the bodies. Israel does not have women serve in combat roles because they want to see their daughters killed - they do this because they need the bodies.

Last I checked, homosexuals made up somewhere between 10% and 30% of the population, depending on who you listen to. From my own experience, I would say they make up a much larger portion of the females in the military then either of those numbers.

I also think you miss the point of regulatory inclusion;

No law nor amount of homophobia has ever kept gays out of the military. Given that this is a fact, policy must be set based on creating the most functional military we can have. This is no different then any other form of prejudice - ethnic, racial, religious, etc...

Serving your country is not something where you get to pick teams. Prejudice and tension will always exist in any military called from a diverse nation. It is one of the few times in your life that you be will asked to set aside your differences and serve the common good. Doing this is part of what it takes to be a solider.


Personally, I would be offended if being gay was a reason to avoid military service - if you expect to be reap the rewards of living in this country, I expect you to pay the same price for that privilege.

That anyone, be they gay or straight or purple or made of jello or whatever, would choose to serve deserves respect. If you have not made the same sacrifice, your ground to judge is shaky.
 
ROFLMAO...............Molesting kids isn't against the law? You're a special kind of dude.

You didn't say child molester (a crime). You said pedophile, and you specifically used it in the sense of a sexual orientation. So yes, if they're a pedophile and they aren't molesting kids or breaking any other laws, of course they're entitled to equal rights.
 
Last edited:
ROFLMAO...............Molesting kids isn't against the law? You're a special kind of dude.

Errrr... Ummm he said as long as "they obey the law" he said nothing about molesting any kids.
 
You end up with the same issues that exist with providing privacy for all soldiers. You don't have to be gay or homophobic to desire privacy. When it is possible, the military does its best to provide this. When it is not, this goes in the suck it up category. Sometimes, you are asked to go without sleep for days at a time, wear dirty clothes, kill people, and watch your friends die. If this "suck it up" concept is confusing to you, there is a VFW chapter near you and I am sure they will be happy to help.

When shower facilities are limited, accommodating female and male soldiers cause issues. Sometimes this is dealt with with shower schedules. Some small outposts do not have adequate facilities and female soldiers are just not posted there. These are practical solutions to practical problems.

I think you miss the point of inclusion in the military;

Rome did not offer slaves a route to citizenship through military service because they respected their rights - they needed the bodies. The racist old boys club of the American military caste did not include black soldiers because they liked them - they did this because they needed the bodies. Israel does not have women serve in combat roles because they want to see their daughters killed - they do this because they need the bodies.

Last I checked, homosexuals made up somewhere between 10% and 30% of the population, depending on who you listen to. From my own experience, I would say they make up a much larger portion of the females in the military then either of those numbers.

I also think you miss the point of regulatory inclusion;

No law nor amount of homophobia has ever kept gays out of the military. Given that this is a fact, policy must be set based on creating the most functional military we can have. This is no different then any other form of prejudice - ethnic, racial, religious, etc...

Serving your country is not something where you get to pick teams. Prejudice and tension will always exist in any military called from a diverse nation. It is one of the few times in your life that you be will asked to set aside your differences and serve the common good. Doing this is part of what it takes to be a solider.


Personally, I would be offended if being gay was a reason to avoid military service - if you expect to be reap the rewards of living in this country, I expect you to pay the same price for that privilege.

You wouldn't tell a female to, "suck it up", if she refused to shower with male soldiers. My point is, it's going to cause complications when straight soldiers refuse to shower with gay soldiers and vice-versa. I mean, what are you going to do? Physically force soldiers to shower with each other in those situations? Good luck with unit morale after that.

That anyone, be they gay or straight or purple or made of jello or whatever, would choose to serve deserves respect. If you have not made the same sacrifice, your ground to judge is shaky.

I spent 13 years as an infantryman, so I'm standing on solid rock when I compare the abolition of DADT to current DoD and DA policies. I opposed the abolition of DADT on the same grounds that I oppose females serving in combat arms units and co-ed units. It could cause--and has--a break down in discipline, thereby causing a unit to lose some of it's combat power. Are you familiar with the elements of combat power?
 
You wouldn't tell a female to, "suck it up", if she refused to shower with male soldiers. My point is, it's going to cause complications when straight soldiers refuse to shower with gay soldiers and vice-versa. I mean, what are you going to do? Physically force soldiers to shower with each other in those situations? Good luck with unit morale after that.

Soldiers are trained to kill if necessary, and are placed in war zones where they could die. If their biggest complaint is their shower partners, they need to grow the **** up. If they refuse to shower with gay soldiers? Warn or punish them on the first offense, then dishonorably discharge them for insubordination if the problem continues.

A dude checking out your junk in the shower is NOT a good enough reason for banning gays from serving openly. Try again.

apdst said:
I spent 13 years as an infantryman, so I'm standing on solid rock when I compare the abolition of DADT to current DoD and DA policies. I opposed the abolition of DADT on the same grounds that I oppose females serving in combat arms units and co-ed units. It could cause--and has--a break down in discipline, thereby causing a unit to lose some of it's combat power. Are you familiar with the elements of combat power?

Gays are still serving in the military, they just aren't serving OPENLY. So how exactly will it cause a breakdown in discipline? What purpose is served by keeping their homosexuality a secret?
 
Last edited:
Soldiers are trained to kill if necessary, and are placed in war zones where they could die. If their biggest complaint is their shower partners, they need to grow the **** up. If they refuse to shower with gay soldiers? Warn or punish them on the first offense, then dishonorably discharge them for insubordination if the problem continues.

Your ignorance of how the military works is overflowing. Ya see, regardless of how many times we hear the old, "the army isn't a democracy", BS the fact is that soldiers have rights. A females soldier has the right to not have to be nekkid in the same room with male soldiers. If you were a leader in the military and you hit that female soldier with your little, "suck it up and drive on", mentality, you wouldn't be a leader for long. In accordance with that same policy, a straight, or even a gay solider could insist on the same level of privacy and would have to be accorded that, as their right.

I would love for you to try and force a female soldier to shower with a male soldier, or deny a soldier his/her rights to perform personal hygene and see how fast your butt is cashiered out of the service.
 
You didn't say child molester (a crime). You said pedophile, and you specifically used it in the sense of a sexual orientation. So yes, if they're a pedophile and they aren't molesting kids or breaking any other laws, of course they're entitled to equal rights.
The point is there are several different sexual orientations. Only one of them involves performing a natural act, and therefore is the only one that should be seen as legitimate. Just because you know some gay guys that are neato fellas doesn't mean they aren't sexual deviants. I don't want to be in a freakin fox hole with one, period.
 
The point is there are several different sexual orientations. Only one of them involves performing a natural act,

There are several different forms of attire and only one of them involves a natural act. That would be nudity.

Are you suggesting that nature dictates to us what we accept as a society?

I suppose since you are so nature obsessed, you would like to bar people who wear corrective lenses from the military too. How about those with fillings in their teeth? Women who shave their legs? How about anyone with a metal pin to repair a broken bone?

Anyone who has performed cunilingus? Felatio? There's nothing exactly natural about french kissing. Electricity has got to go for the military. Anything else not natural? We can just make the list now and let you sign off on it before passing it on to our congressmen for review.
 
The point is there are several different sexual orientations. Only one of them involves performing a natural act, and therefore is the only one that should be seen as legitimate. Just because you know some gay guys that are neato fellas doesn't mean they aren't sexual deviants. I don't want to be in a freakin fox hole with one, period.

Well then that's your problem, not theirs. Perhaps we should allow gays to serve openly, and have a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for homophobes. Under this policy, you won't be discharged as long as you keep your hillbilly bigotry to yourself. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Your ignorance of how the military works is overflowing. Ya see, regardless of how many times we hear the old, "the army isn't a democracy", BS the fact is that soldiers have rights. A females soldier has the right to not have to be nekkid in the same room with male soldiers. If you were a leader in the military and you hit that female soldier with your little, "suck it up and drive on", mentality, you wouldn't be a leader for long. In accordance with that same policy, a straight, or even a gay solider could insist on the same level of privacy and would have to be accorded that, as their right.

I would love for you to try and force a female soldier to shower with a male soldier, or deny a soldier his/her rights to perform personal hygene and see how fast your butt is cashiered out of the service.

So you believe that soldiers should have the right to pick and choose with whom they want to shower? What was that about maintaining unit discipline again? :lol:
 
There are several different forms of attire and only one of them involves a natural act. That would be nudity.

Are you suggesting that nature dictates to us what we accept as a society?

I suppose since you are so nature obsessed, you would like to bar people who wear corrective lenses from the military too. How about those with fillings in their teeth? Women who shave their legs? How about anyone with a metal pin to repair a broken bone?

Anyone who has performed cunilingus? Felatio? There's nothing exactly natural about french kissing. Electricity has got to go for the military. Anything else not natural? We can just make the list now and let you sign off on it before passing it on to our congressmen for review.
Hahaha, these analogies are awesome. Yeah, cos using electricity is right on par with grown men sodomizing each other. The fact is none of the things you described affect unit cohesion. Homosexuality does. Maybe one day when everyone shares y9our "enlightened" opinion, it won't matter. In the real world, however, it does.
 
So you believe that soldiers should have the right to pick and choose with whom they want to shower? What was that about maintaining unit discipline again? :lol:
Soldiers are required to shower with those of the same gender, because of issues of sexual tension. Are you really sure you want to use this point to make your argument?
 
Hahaha, these analogies are awesome. Yeah, cos using electricity is right on par with grown men sodomizing each other. The fact is none of the things you described affect unit cohesion. Homosexuality does. Maybe one day when everyone shares y9our "enlightened" opinion, it won't matter. In the real world, however, it does.

Except no one has said anything about "grown men sodomizing each other." Is THAT what you're worried will happen if some dude checks out your package in the shower? :lol:

Proof of sodomy is not required; people can be discharged from the military merely for their sexual orientation, even if they're pure-as-snow virgins.
 
You wouldn't tell a female to, "suck it up", if she refused to shower with male soldiers.

At a practical level, you schedule shower times. In real life, any NCO worth the title can find a practical solution to such a problem.

My point is, it's going to cause complications when straight soldiers refuse to shower with gay soldiers and vice-versa. I mean, what are you going to do? Physically force soldiers to shower with each other in those situations? Good luck with unit morale after that.

See above. At a practical level, showers in theater are almost all divided into stalls these days. There have always been people who didn't want to shower with the guys - even for reasons other then being gay or homophobic. They have always either suffered or rescheduled their own time.

I spent 13 years as an infantryman, so I'm standing on solid rock when I compare the abolition of DADT to current DoD and DA policies. I opposed the abolition of DADT on the same grounds that I oppose females serving in combat arms units and co-ed units. It could cause--and has--a break down in discipline, thereby causing a unit to lose some of it's combat power. Are you familiar with the elements of combat power?

Yep. I have spent most of my career as a line-medic in infantry units. I have seen all kinds of things destroy the moral of a unit, and most have them have been green on green violence of one kind or another. One of the most common has been soldiers failing to set aside a variety of prejudices. Maybe the most common is failure of leadership. If the 1SG cannot deal with females, it makes the rest a lot harder.

I have seen the most incredibly ignorant and racist hick you could imagine risk his life for the equally racist Malcolm-X wannabe next to him because they had a bond that had nothing to do with wanting to shower together or liking each other.

Here's a question for you: Maybe you could not today accept a female or gay male into such a bond. If, from the minute you had joined, you had been expected to do this, and everyone had been held to the same standard, could you have learned to do it?
 
Soldiers are required to shower with those of the same gender, because of issues of sexual tension. Are you really sure you want to use this point to make your argument?

Whose sexual tension are we talking about here? Yours or theirs? If you're so worried about the dreaded shower scenario, then YOU are the one with the issues that should be dealt with...not them.
 
Well then that's your problem, not theirs. Perhaps we should allow gays to serve openly, and have a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for homophobes. Under this policy, you won't be discharged as long as you keep your hillbilly bigotry to yourself. :2wave:
You should thank God for "hillbilly bigots". They keep the coast clear so you can log on to your computer and crusade for sodomoy all day. You think people with your mindset are trading fire with Hajji? There are a few, but you are in the minority. Hell, you couldn't even get Prop 8 passed in the most liberal state in the union. That should have been an indicator to you.
 
Hahaha, these analogies are awesome.


Honesty is never what I would consider "awesome". It's expected.

But please, if you can show me where "natural" is a legitimate argument for legitimizing or not legitimizing human behavior, I would love to see it. Because from where I'm sitting...there isn't a human being alive who leads a "natural" life.

You fail.
 
Except no one has said anything about "grown men sodomizing each other." Is THAT what you're worried will happen if some dude checks out your package in the shower? :lol:

Proof of sodomy is not required; people can be discharged from the military merely for their sexual orientation, even if they're pure-as-snow virgins.
Ummm, the post was a response to a comparison that had been made between homosexuality and other "unnatural acts". And last time I checked, homosexuality involved grown men sodomizing each other.
 
So you believe that soldiers should have the right to pick and choose with whom they want to shower? What was that about maintaining unit discipline again? :lol:

A female has the right not to be forced to shower with a male. You're right. If you think that's not true then you definitely living in a dream world.
 
Whose sexual tension are we talking about here? Yours or theirs? If you're so worried about the dreaded shower scenario, then YOU are the one with the issues that should be dealt with...not them.
Obviously I was referring to Army guidelines, why they're in place, and how it relates to the discussion. But if you would like to chalk it up to homophobia, feel free, since it seems to be the basis of your argument anyways.
 
Back
Top Bottom