• 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!

Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

I couldn't have said it better, well put......:)

Of course you couldn't since like him, your position on this issue is absurd, unfounded, and abhorrent. As long as you are aware of that, if that is the position you want, that's fine. Just be aware of what kind of position it is.
 
The military isn't a social science lab. Leave it be. It was bad enough when they let women serve on ships and fly fighters...

Hell, I got sent to "sensitivity training" with the ships Chaplin once! Why? I was on the fantail havin' a smoke, and about 4 people asked to bum a light. The fifth kid comes up, young black kid I think he was in Deck Department, and I said "Sure is a dearth of lighters today" as I held out my lighter.

What did the kid do, he kind of looked at me odd, walked away and the next day I got counceled for being insensitive and sent to the Chaplin for "Racial Sensitivity Training" because the kid thought I used a big word to insult him. No ****, true story.

The military doesn't need more social engineering crap.
 
The military isn't a social science lab. Leave it be. It was bad enough when they let women serve on ships and fly fighters...

Hell, I got sent to "sensitivity training" with the ships Chaplin once! Why? I was on the fantail havin' a smoke, and about 4 people asked to bum a light. The fifth kid comes up, young black kid I think he was in Deck Department, and I said "Sure is a dearth of lighters today" as I held out my lighter.

What did the kid do, he kind of looked at me odd, walked away and the next day I got counceled for being insensitive and sent to the Chaplin for "Racial Sensitivity Training" because the kid thought I used a big word to insult him. No ****, true story.

The military doesn't need more social engineering crap.

WTF? You where allowed to smoke on the fantail? When was this? The last workup I went on, there where a total of 10 designated smoking areas on the ship and just walking into any of them and taking one breath got you all the nicotine you needed for days.

Women on ships worked MrV, as did blacks in the same berthings(which by the way is not spelled "birthings" like I originally typed), as did all these "social experiments".

As far as your story, the military tends to overreact to some things. Where you in during the Tailhook scandal? In the course of the year after that, we went through no less than 8 full days of sexual harassment training, including 2 two day events, and we all went to small week long training sessions on the topic.
 
WTF? You where allowed to smoke on the fantail? When was this? The last workup I went on, there where a total of 10 designated smoking areas on the ship and just walking into any of them and taking one breath got you all the nicotine you needed for days.
1998-2002...

Women on ships worked MrV, as did blacks in the same berthings(which by the way is not spelled "birthings" like I originally typed), as did all these "social experiments".
So, I was busy cooking Steak and Eggs for my wife...

My problem with Females on Ships isn't that they are INCAPABLE of doing the job... it's that their being there becomes a distraction... which it does. And that if a shop has say 5 people, and one or more of them prior to a deployment gets pregnant, often there isn't enough time to replace that person, so the others have to pull extra duty. Which is really bull****. Happened on the Inchon far more often then you might want to admit.

As far as your story, the military tends to overreact to some things. Where you in during the Tailhook scandal? In the course of the year after that, we went through no less than 8 full days of sexual harassment training, including 2 two day events, and we all went to small week long training sessions on the topic.

I remember my father was pissed as HELL about Tailhook. He thought the whole thing was overblown (wrong on the guys part but still) and the Media ran with that in a way that was way unacceptable.
 
I'll just quote you then:

"Of course, you do realize that sodomy =/= HIV (just as sodomy =/= gay), right?"

And then ask you to further define that

Further define it? Are you serious?

My meaning is perfectly clear and 100% factual:

Performing an act of sodomy does not mean you are going to contract HVI, just as performing an act of sodomy does not mean you are gay.

And by the way, you should also know that serving in the military with a homosexual won't make you a homosexual.
 
I wasn't suggesting we do anything. I was asking you to complete your train of thought.

Bull. I said what I had to say. You added your own crap and called it mine.

You said they should be willing to serve with a gay person, but a lot of them (grunts) might not be. In light of this fact, what do you propose we do? Just kick out the ones who aren't okay with gays? I mean, what else could you do?

You educate them and expect them to act like the ****ing adults they're supposed to be, to follow their orders and not deviate from them for any pansy "personal reasons." Aren't our military men and women supposed to be the greatest fighting force on the planet? Jesus. I'd be ashamed and afraid to call myself a member if there are so many delicate flowers on the team.

I agree that you didn't claim what I said, and that I was lazy in my words, but I think you know what I meant.

I know what you said, but it had absolutely no connection to me or anything I've said. How about next time you simply ask your questions and let others answer on their own?

How would you solve this dilemma? Is there another option besides forcing them out of the military? I don't see one.

There. I knew you could do it. Here's my take on the matter:

You educate them and expect them to act like the ****ing adults they're supposed to be, to follow their orders and not deviate from them for any pansy "personal reasons." You give them strict instructions and allow for one or two "oopsie" moments, so no one can cry foul about how awful and harsh it is to have to suddenly behave like a grown up. After that, they're out. If it means we ****can a bunch of bad apples, so be it. Do we really want a bunch of whiny and/or violent homophobes on the force anyway?

Just do your damned job and get over yourself. :roll:
 
Really? I was witness to one incident, where a young black guy had the absolute temerity to say yes when a white girl asked him to dance. When he returned to where we where sitting, one of the guys(who probably had been hoping to try and put the moves on this girl) said "we don't like niggers dancing with white girls". He not surprisingly went to Captain's mast for it, and did 60/60 with R in R and half months pay X2.

The funny thing is that the white people, including myself who where there where the most pissed. It was the black guys who kept a couple of the white guys from stomping on the racist bastard. I am pretty sure that a decade or so from now, if you changes this to be about straits and gays, the story would be almost identical. The military always resists change, but the military does change, and change alot.

I am not saying that incidents don't take place but they are the exception rather then the rule..
 
This is exactly it. Gays already serve, and have proven that they can fit in and be a part of the team, without disruption or any loss of unit cohesion or morale. Those who have done so are the reason we are at the point we are now, where we can remove DADT without real worry of negative consequences. We owe a debt of gratitude to these men and women, not just for their service to country, but for the fact they did it with an added burden, and did it well enough that they have changed the attitudes of a large portion of their fellow military personnel.

Everyone knows gays serve now....no revelations there...and a lot of been discharged for violating the UCMJ........
 
Wow....you would think that if most men were unable to control themselves like you have said that you wouldn't be able to control yourself that these gay men in the Navy would be all over each other and sexually assaulting straight men at every turn.

I guess this just proves that most men aren't like you Navy. Most are able to control their sexual urges.

And you couldn't either under the condittions I mentioned.It is useless to debate this with you because you won't admit when your wrong DD......No man could with stand the example I gave.........
 
The military isn't a social science lab. Leave it be. It was bad enough when they let women serve on ships and fly fighters...

Hell, I got sent to "sensitivity training" with the ships Chaplin once! Why? I was on the fantail havin' a smoke, and about 4 people asked to bum a light. The fifth kid comes up, young black kid I think he was in Deck Department, and I said "Sure is a dearth of lighters today" as I held out my lighter.

What did the kid do, he kind of looked at me odd, walked away and the next day I got counceled for being insensitive and sent to the Chaplin for "Racial Sensitivity Training" because the kid thought I used a big word to insult him. No ****, true story.

The military doesn't need more social engineering crap.

Exactly, the military is there to fight our wars and protect the population, not
for social experimentation led by a bunch of "feel good" liberals who are not in the military and have never served........
 
Last edited:
WTF? You where allowed to smoke on the fantail? When was this? The last workup I went on, there where a total of 10 designated smoking areas on the ship and just walking into any of them and taking one breath got you all the nicotine you needed for days.

Women on ships worked MrV, as did blacks in the same berthings(which by the way is not spelled "birthings" like I originally typed), as did all these "social experiments".

As far as your story, the military tends to overreact to some things. Where you in during the Tailhook scandal? In the course of the year after that, we went through no less than 8 full days of sexual harassment training, including 2 two day events, and we all went to small week long training sessions on the topic.

The things that happened at the Tailhook convention went on for many years.....It just so happen that the woman that made all the fuss just happened to get off the elevator on the wrong floor that night and went through that line of men...The women that usually went thru the line enjoyed the attention and were usually drunk.......
 
Women aboard combat ships truth be told has been a miserable failure.........Off the record senior officers and chiefs will tell you that....If they speak on the record it will be held against come promotion and reenlistment time..........
 
Exactly, the military is there to fight our wars and protect the population, not
for social experimentation led by a bunch of "feel good" liberals who are not in the military and have never served........

Let's consider something Navy.

The US military now fights wars in considerably more coalitions with other nations. That means that our servicemen and women are now conducting more and more missions with the servicemen and women of other nations. Now as has already been stated, unit cohesion goes down in our inferior military when our servicemen and women serve alongside openly gay and lesbian people. But alas, all those countries that we form coalitions with allow openly gay and lesbian people to serve. That means even if we don't allow gays and lesbians to serve in our military, our servicemen and women will be fighting alongside openly gay and lesbian people from other nations. And that of course means, that our inferior military could not possibly successfully conduct missions, because of the presence of those foreign gay and lesbian people.

Oh woe is us for having such a pathetic military!

What a wicked liberal social experiment that has been going on since....well....the beginning of the war in Iraq.
 
Originally Posted by apdst
Because it's been my experience that females are more homophobic than males

Ever heard of Yoai? I'd bet not, since it begin in Japan in manga series. :roll: Manga are Japanese comic books.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaoi]Yaoi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

:doh

For me, girls like it when two guys make out just as much as guys like it when they see two girls making out. I am confused, since I am in the anime/ manga crowd, and I see a lot of Yoai/Yuri fans. How are we're more homophobic than males are? You must be living, in your own little world Apsdt.

I used this as an example of how this is not true!



---------------------


I think the dadt rule is bigoted move by the military, and I do want it repealed.
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows gays serve now....no revelations there...and a lot of been discharged for violating the UCMJ........

You don't understand yet do you? People are saying that how a professional behaves should still be top priority. What should be removed is the rules which make it possible to remove somebody from the military simply for being gay when no incident has occurred. If anything DADT is anti-constitutional. The U.S. government would never fire a federal employee for being gay. The fact that it allows this for the military is quite ridiculous and illogical.
 
Let's consider something Navy.

The US military now fights wars in considerably more coalitions with other nations. That means that our servicemen and women are now conducting more and more missions with the servicemen and women of other nations. Now as has already been stated, unit cohesion goes down in our inferior military when our servicemen and women serve alongside openly gay and lesbian people. But alas, all those countries that we form coalitions with allow openly gay and lesbian people to serve. That means even if we don't allow gays and lesbians to serve in our military, our servicemen and women will be fighting alongside openly gay and lesbian people from other nations. And that of course means, that our inferior military could not possibly successfully conduct missions, because of the presence of those foreign gay and lesbian people.

Oh woe is us for having such a pathetic military!

What a wicked liberal social experiment that has been going on since....well....the beginning of the war in Iraq.


I have a news flash for you my left wing friend.......Joint exercises between nations is nothing new.....It has been going on for years........In fact they have a huge one every year off the coast of Hawaii called Operation RIMPAC where ships of many nations operate together........

Try again..............
 
I have a news flash for you my left wing friend.......Joint exercises between nations is nothing new.....It has been going on for years........In fact they have a huge one every year off the coast of Hawaii called Operation RIMPAC where ships of many nations operate together........

Try again..............

It is not about joint exercises Navy. It is about militaries all over the world having homosexuals in their armed forces and it having zero effect in their cohesion or performance.
 
Let's consider something Navy. The US military now fights wars in considerably more coalitions with other nations.

But....the US Navy being unique in that is is our job to keep the planet's sea lanes open for maritime commerce and free trade and that responsibility they've done very well, shouldn't we and not some fluid coalition group decide such issues? It is obvious nations enjoying the resources of production do so with the United States making sure from the Straits in Hormuz to the piracy threats on the African coast, that these nations who are so closely allied in economic dependency, can count on security and stablility.

Given this, why not we make our own rules. Everyone else learn from us. We're the ones with ships and subs out for 6 and 8 months, we're the ones with men and women in close proximity in war zones deployed for years. What say we make the rules?
 
You don't understand yet do you? People are saying that how a professional behaves should still be top priority. What should be removed is the rules which make it possible to remove somebody from the military simply for being gay when no incident has occurred. If anything DADT is anti-constitutional. The U.S. government would never fire a federal employee for being gay. The fact that it allows this for the military is quite ridiculous and illogical.

Your the one who is clueless when it comes to life aboard a Navy ship at sea...Your the one it makes feel so good that you can take up the plight of gays in the military...Its no skin off your ass.It will not affect you one way or the other.......Well let me tell you something it does affect those guys serving on ships working 16 hours a day and staying at sea for long periods of time...........


DADT is a law my left wing friend.....it met the constitutional requirements when it was made in 1993..................
 
I have a news flash for you my left wing friend.......Joint exercises between nations is nothing new.....It has been going on for years........In fact they have a huge one every year off the coast of Hawaii called Operation RIMPAC where ships of many nations operate together........

Try again..............

Oh, I'm sorry. You mean to say that our servicemen and women have been conducting operations with openly gay and lesbian servicepeople from other countries for years? Wow, how interesting that is my right wing friend. Remind me again how serving alongside openly gay and lesbian people is suppose to be a dangerous social experiment?
 
It is not about joint exercises Navy. It is about militaries all over the world having homosexuals in their armed forces and it having zero effect in their cohesion or performance.

I explained that to you...I am not going to do it again..Read the ****ing thread.........
 
Oh, I'm sorry. You mean to say that our servicemen and women have been conducting operations with openly gay and lesbian servicepeople from other countries for years? Wow, how interesting that is my right wing friend. Remind me again how serving alongside openly gay and lesbian people is suppose to be a dangerous social experiment?

Sure they have, at sea, with them on their own ship, not sleeping and showering with them .......huge difference........
 
Your the one who is clueless when it comes to life aboard a Navy ship at sea...Your the one it makes feel so good that you can take up the plight of gays in the military...Its no skin off your ass.It will not affect you one way or the other.......Well let me tell you something it does affect those guys serving on ships working 16 hours a day and staying at sea for long periods of time...........

This is the last post I'll make on this because now you're just getting stubborn and I have to take my kid to the clinic. But please, I beg you to try and read my post and understand what it is I'm saying :

What people have stated is that gays already are in the military. They already spend 16 hours a day working alongside straights, they already shower with straights, the already eat with straights, sleep alongside straights and in the majority of cases zero incident occurs.

What people have stated is that if it is found that a member serving is gay, that should not be grounds for expulsion because their sexuality does not affect their job performance or that of anybody around them. If a discrepancy does occur, they should be treated no different than any other member of the armed forces. But the fact that they are gay should not be enough to kick them out.

DADT is a law my left wing friend.....it met the constitutional requirements when it was made in 1993..................

As far as meeting constitutional requirements that is laughable. A law can be found to be unconstitutional after it has been passed.
 
Sure they have, at sea, with them on their own ship, not sleeping and showering with them .......huge difference........

Except for all the gays and lesbians that are sleeping and showering with them on their own ship that they just don't know about because they aren't allowed to serve openly. :mrgreen:

I've figured it out from reading your posts Navy. DADT works for you because it allows you to pretend there are no gays currently living on board ships. That is hilarious!

The only difference that repealing DADT will have is that all the gay people who are currently serving in secret will be allowed to serve openly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom