• 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!

2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

Sorry but it is bs.


These generals are homophobic period. Anyone against gays in the military are homophobic. Anyone against women in the military are sexist. That is a fact. These generals should do their freaking job instead of getting mixed up in politics.. if they want to be in politics, then leave the military and do so.. dont sit behind the desk at the pentagon and promote their narrow-minded crap.

You really dont have any clue about the military do you. So if I am a general and am honest and not trying to be PC and admit that allowing gays to serve openly may cause some problems from so in the Military that makes me homophobic. There is no possible way that it just might be that I have been around alot of soldiers and know that many of them will have problems with people being openly gay and the situation needs to be studied and done with the right way so as not to effect combat readiness. You really show that you dont know what the hell you are talking about when you say things like that. If it is a fact as you say than I am sure you can prove it right. If you dont think that females in the millitary has and continues to cause problems than that just further shows you are totaly clueless
 
So? So? I'm waiting.

People thought integrating black people into the rest of the military would ruin unit cohesion and morale.
 
People thought integrating black people into the rest of the military would ruin unit cohesion and morale.
Okay, so??
 
The biggest problem that I have with allowing gays to serve openly is that they will probably become one more protected segment of the military the same as women. Now I am not saying this is the gays or womens fault but it is what it is. While I admitidly dont work with women very often in my job but on occasion when dealing with support personal you come across the woman who know that she can get away with alot more that a man could when it comes to not doing her job or being disciplined. To many people in command are worried about having a complaint of discrimination from a woman and just let her get away with it. I have a friend that for a while was in some trouble because he made a comment to a lower ranking woman about her weight because she clearly was not within height and weight standard. Now if he would have said the exact same thing to a dude it would have been fine and well within his rights to do so. There are also minoritys that play the race card for the same reasons. To me this is one of the biggest problems of letting gays serve openly in the millitary and needs to be adressed.
 
Last edited:
What really makes this sickening right now is that this subject has even got this much priority & focus from Chairman Obama. You'd think he'd be more concerned about winning the conflict in Afghanistan. So while the Liberal papers are headinling this issue like its so damn important right now the actual conflict (where many brave men are risking & sacrificing there lives) gets page 10. :roll:
 
How about we ask other countries that let gays openly serve in the military? Didn't Canada's military implode? Didn't Great Britain's? Did the soldiers mutiny or crack because while they can take the pressures of combat, they can't take the chance of "suprise butsecks!" The evidence says... not really. They functioned as before and the world continues to go round.

Now I don't know an iota of a fraction of knowledge on military affairs as these two generals, but I can pull up a lot of high ranking military officials on the other side. Also, it probably won't be as easy as it sounds like what Jray said earlier. However, as he said, that's no reason not to do it. We racially integrated the military despite the dificulties. We can do the same with gays and straights.
 
Last edited:
What really makes this sickening right now is that this subject has even got this much priority & focus from Chairman Obama. You'd think he'd be more concerned about winning the conflict in Afghanistan. So while the Liberal papers are headinling this issue like its so damn important right now the actual conflict (where many brave men are risking & sacrificing there lives) gets page 10. :roll:

Maybe you cannot walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, but most can. Doing one thing does not mean neglecting something else. Logic people, logic...
 
2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy - NYTimes.com

By THOM SHANKER
Published: February 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — The top generals from the Army and the Air Force expressed deep concern on Tuesday about moving rapidly to lift the ban on openly gay service members, saying it could make it harder for their forces to do their jobs while fighting two wars.

The comments by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of the staff, and Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, may provide political cover for members of Congress who oppose President Obama’s call for repealing the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years,” General Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.”

Wait! What? I thought the Liberals told us that all the brass suported the abolition of DADT.
 
Huh? If men and women can serve together, what is the difference if gay people are serving? This business that heterosexuals believe that gay people are attracted to EVERY person of their same sex is so ludicrous. Gay people are just like us--they are attracted to some people, but not all. Do these stupid generals think, "Joey is gay. He must be staring at my ass. He must want to BF me." Oh brother. Talk about ignorant.

In the military, if a female thinks you're eye-****ing her, not only can she file a sexual harassment charge against you, she can also get you charged with intent to rape, which is a court martial offense. Whether, or not you wanted to rape her is of no matter; as long as she believes that you wanted to rape her.

The same standard can and will be applied to gays. At least, I hope the same standard will apply. I pray that there won't be a double standard.
 
So they found two homophobic generals.. big wutido.

:rofl

Yea, anyone who doesn't agree with PeteEU is just homophobic. Straight out of the leftist playbook. You are so utterly predictable...
 
Okay, I getcha. So if we change the policy to open gay lifestyle all those cost will go away and it will be free. Thanks, I stand corrected. I'm glad we have these analysis available to show us the err of our ways.

Dont forget the polygamists and cross dressers. You let in one life style choice why not the rest of them? Aren't they people too? Don't they deserve "rights?" :roll:
 
Dont forget the polygamists and cross dressers. You let in one life style choice why not the rest of them? Aren't they people too? Don't they deserve "rights?" :roll:

:rofl...AR 670-1 will be a thousand pages long if that happens.
 
Sorry but it is bs.

This ban on homosexuals in the military is a leftover from the days when homosexuality was banned in general in society, either by law or by some sort of society moral often enforced by the church and the state.

While society has managed for the most part to get rid of the bans on homosexuality, the ban still remains entrenched in the macho world of the military.

There whole argument is the same lame argument that they used to prevent women severing in the military and that argument was overcome for the most part.

The argument is an old mans conservative argument that is based on the age old dividing up of roles in society.. men hunt and provide, women are homemakers and breeding machines. Anyone stepping outside this predefined role are punished. Like it or not, we dont live in the 1400s anymore, but in the 21st century.

These generals are homophobic period. Anyone against gays in the military are homophobic. Anyone against women in the military are sexist. That is a fact. These generals should do their freaking job instead of getting mixed up in politics.. if they want to be in politics, then leave the military and do so.. dont sit behind the desk at the pentagon and promote their narrow-minded crap.

There is no ban on homosexuals in the military. Plenty of them serve as it is; they just can't let their sexuality become known. Sad, but I think that's the best policy for now. We have more important things to worry about than someone's feelings. That's not to say the policy shouldn't be reviewed, but the only changes should come after a serious anaylsis has been conducted by the military. I know it's hard for you to accept, but people who served in the United States military actually know much more about it than some pinhead Eurotrash.
 
:rofl...AR 670-1 will be a thousand pages long if that happens.

Its funny but seriously, what argument could you possibly make for keeping the rest of the lifestyle choices out once you let one in? Doesn't matter if its cross dressers or polygamists or homosexuals first. Once that wall is down, its down for all.
 
Its funny but seriously, what argument could you possibly make for keeping the rest of the lifestyle choices out once you let one in? Doesn't matter if its cross dressers or polygamists or homosexuals first. Once that wall is down, its down for all.

No argument at all.

I'm still wondering how, exactly, they're going to by-pass the UCMJ to repeal DADT. That's going to be interesting, to say the least.
 
In the military, if a female thinks you're eye-****ing her, not only can she file a sexual harassment charge against you, she can also get you charged with intent to rape, which is a court martial offense. Whether, or not you wanted to rape her is of no matter; as long as she believes that you wanted to rape her.

Got a link for this patently false claim, or is this another "oh it's not official but that's just how it works" situations?

I'm still wondering how, exactly, they're going to by-pass the UCMJ to repeal DADT. That's going to be interesting, to say the least.

So are you still claiming that Congress cannot change the UCMJ without the Supreme Court's approval, or have you given up on that?
 
I was a Marine for 8 years so i think im qualified to talk about it.

If they let OPEN homosexuals join the military i feel sorry for that person, they will be mocked and teased untill they quit and recieve a "dis-honorable" discharge. OR they will join just so they can sue the military for harrasment and quit with a huge payout. Military soldiers do NOT need this BS, keep your social projects in civiilan life.

Men in the military is like men in contruction, im sorry but its not homo friendly :2wave:
 
Last edited:
What really makes this sickening right now is that this subject has even got this much priority & focus from Chairman Obama. You'd think he'd be more concerned about winning the conflict in Afghanistan. So while the Liberal papers are headinling this issue like its so damn important right now the actual conflict (where many brave men are risking & sacrificing there lives) gets page 10. :roll:

Ever hear of multi-tasking? Why does a President have a cabinet and numerous aids who focus on specific areas of policy?

This war is over 8 years old. If it's that damned important, then why didn't Bush focus on it? Obama inherited this war and he has no obligation to pursue it to your satisfaction.
 
I was a Marine for 8 years so i think im qualified to talk about it.

If they let OPEN homosexuals join the military i feel sorry for that person, they will be mocked and teased untill they quit and recieve a "dis-honorable" discharge.
well then it won;t matter if they change it, will it, coz thats what happens now, so no one should care

OR they will join just so they can sue the military for harrasment and quit with a huge payout. Military soldiers do NOT need this BS, keep your social projects in civiilan life.

Men in the military is like men in contruction, im sorry but its not homo friendly :2wave:

why would they do that?

has it maybe occured to you that gays just want to serve their country, they don't care about making it a political statement, they just want to be able to serve without getting discharged if they're seen with there partner off base
 
I was a Marine for 8 years so i think im qualified to talk about it.

If they let OPEN homosexuals join the military i feel sorry for that person, they will be mocked and teased untill they quit and recieve a "dis-honorable" discharge. OR they will join just so they can sue the military for harrasment and quit with a huge payout. Military soldiers do NOT need this BS, keep your social projects in civiilan life.

Men in the military is like men in contruction, im sorry but its not homo friendly :2wave:

You sure have a mighty low opinion of our military. Saying that gays will be mocked and teased is saying that those doing these actions are low-life scum who have no respect for regulations, no respect for their uniform, and no respect for fellow human beings.

How sad is that?
 
You sure have a mighty low opinion of our military. Saying that gays will be mocked and teased is saying that those doing these actions are low-life scum who have no respect for regulations, no respect for their uniform, and no respect for fellow human beings.

How sad is that?

I served, you did not. So you have no clue what you are talking about. Maybe you have not been around large numbers of young men, im sorry to disapoint you but they are very crude. :2wave:

Young men and women in the military have enough to worry about, like not getting shot than to worry if some homosexual got offended by something said
 
Last edited:
Dont forget the polygamists and cross dressers. You let in one life style choice why not the rest of them? Aren't they people too? Don't they deserve "rights?" :roll:

There is no polygamous or cross dressing sexual orientation, so you comment makes zero sense.
 
It is really tiring listening to people say, "well I served in the military, so only I know what happens there and what this is about." It gives the impression that only those who served have the right/knowledge to discuss this. If that is true, than anyone who has never had an abortion has no right to discuss the issue. And no one who is not a liberal (or conservative) can discuss what it's like to be a liberal (or conservative). And if anyone dares to comment on the psychological nature of anything, I'll just tell them that since they are not a therapist, their opinion is meaningless. It's a weak debate tactic, that attempts to dismiss opinion without reason. Here's another way to look at it. Those in the military have NO ability to comment on this issue because they have no objectivity. :roll: Guess what? Arguing from either position is cowardly and shows that you cannot defend your position, logically.
 
Back
Top Bottom