• 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!

Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

If you are going to continue to deny the truth please list any natural function of homosexual sex.

Go right ahead.

I already did. The establishment of bonds between primates of the same species, gender tribes etc. The fact that this is natural function is established by studies done on some of our closest relatives in the animal world. Try reading?

Now you are simply lying about what I said.

And you are lying about there not being any other natural functions of homosexual sex. :shrug:
 
I already did. The establishment of bonds between primates of the same species, gender tribes etc. The fact that this is natural function is established by studies done on some of our closest relatives in the animal world. Try reading?

I did and nothing in there is a claim of nature. Try reading the difference between nature and culture.

And you are lying about there not being any other natural functions of homosexual sex. :shrug:

Then name them. Put up or shut up.
 
I did and nothing in there is a claim of nature. Try reading the difference between nature and culture.

What ignorance. Read about the difference between nature and culture. Bonobos have no proven culture. Their interactions with each other are the result of millions of years of social development. Social development has nothing to do with culture in this context. Thus proving that homosexuality is a natural function. Biological and natural are not the same thing. By any means. Are you sure you don't mean the biological functions homosexual sex? I'll give you a chance to retract ;)

Then name them. Put up or shut up.

I did. Your denial of what 'natural' is tells us all that.
 
Last edited:
You refuse to go point for point and you have the gall to call me dishonest? Take a good look in the mirror Redress.



Ah the last refuge of the defeated. And of course you can't even quote what you claim I "took out of context"

Your dishonesty really knows no bounds does it?



Proclaiming victory without even addressing the specific points is a sure sign of defeat.



While you duck going point for point like a real debator.



Wrong. Once again I point to your own post:



So which is it Redress? Which face am I addressing again?



Once of those being MARRIED to another woman according to YOUR OWN POST.



Once again I must embarass you and look at the law behind this:

That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

How are you going to try wiggle out of it this time?

Just in case you missed it for the 5th time, it states:

That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex

And once more:

That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex

Are you done now? Or are you going to continue to pretend that you haven't said it despite me quoting you and now being confronted by yet another source informing you once again how painfully wrong you are.

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

This truly is like watching a sinking ship with the captain still claiming nothing is wrong. Its painful and amusing to watch at the same time.

This is almost embarrassing. It's like you do not ever comprehend what is written, and just look for ways to bolster your claim, instead of looking at facts. I will slow this down even more for you, maybe, just maybe you will comprehend, though I doubt it.

Being discharged under DADT is not punishment. There is no trial, no NJP, no court marshal involved. It is purely administrative. Even your own link says this:

A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made

This is something no one has argued. I pointed it out early on, and added detail. So yes, unless misconduct is discovered(which it was not in this case), the discharge is entry level or honorable, yes the discharged person retains veterans benefits, yes, if over 6 years served they get separation pay.

Repeating something that no one is arguing time and again does not mean your point in other areas is right.
 
I did and nothing in there is a claim of nature. Try reading the difference between nature and culture.



Then name them. Put up or shut up.

Yeah, most stuff that occurs in nature is not natural....

I would strongly recomment doing some reading on evolution(Hrdy is a favorite)[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sarah-Blaffer-Hrdy/e/B000APTWLI/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1268905942&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Sarah Blaffer Hrdy: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle[/ame], and some on genetics. You might not get so confused in the future.
 
A question for all of you attacking tex... if heterosexuality is not genetically predisposed, what are your alternate theories for why something like 99.9% of all eukaryotic organisms engage in this activity?
 
A question for all of you attacking tex... if heterosexuality is not genetically predisposed, what are your alternate theories for why something like 99.9% of all eukaryotic organisms engage in this activity?

because its how they reproduce, just because it's necessary doesn't make it genetic.
 
because its how they reproduce, just because it's necessary doesn't make it genetic.
I'm asking for alternate theories for the preponderance of heterosexuality. Got any?
 
A question for all of you attacking tex... if heterosexuality is not genetically predisposed, what are your alternate theories for why something like 99.9% of all eukaryotic organisms engage in this activity?

Because there's a difference between activity and genetic inherited traits?
 
Because there's a difference between activity and genetic inherited traits?
I'm asking for alternate theories for the preponderance of heterosexuality. If not genetically predisposed, then what brings it about?
 
So you have nothing to support your BS claims on an equal comparison. Next time just say so.

So you have nothing to support your BS claims that the law was broken. Next time just say so.
 
I'm asking for alternate theories for the preponderance of heterosexuality. If not genetically predisposed, then what brings it about?

The fact that is is how we reproduce. I guess the same process brought that about that brought about the fact that we eliminate waste by pissing: it's just a fact of nature.

Physiology and genetics are not the same thing.
 
The fact that is is how we reproduce. I guess the same process brought that about that brought about the fact that we eliminate waste by pissing: it's just a fact of nature.

Physiology and genetics are not the same thing.
Not claiming that they are.

So your best answer is "the same process" we use to deficate? Do you have any guesses as to what this mysterious process might be?
 
I'm asking for alternate theories for the preponderance of heterosexuality. If not genetically predisposed, then what brings it about?

By the way, texmaster is latching on to you with the thanks button because he's hoping you can dig him out of the pit he's weaseled himself down in to.

We won't hold that against you though. It's not your fault he's lampreyed to you in hopes you will spare him further embarassment.
 
Not claiming that they are.

So your best answer is "the same process" we use to deficate? Do you have any guesses as to what this mysterious process might be?

First, I didn't say deficate. I said urinate. But same thing.

The process is embryonic development. The morphology and physiology of the eukaryote develops in such a way that the delivery of genetic material during sexual reproduction is through heterosexual coitus.

This would all be relevant if sexual orientation were tied specifically to the process of procreation.
 
This is almost embarrassing. It's like you do not ever comprehend what is written, and just look for ways to bolster your claim, instead of looking at facts. I will slow this down even more for you, maybe, just maybe you will comprehend, though I doubt it.

Being discharged under DADT is not punishment. There is no trial, no NJP, no court marshal involved. It is purely administrative. Even your own link says this:



This is something no one has argued. I pointed it out early on, and added detail. So yes, unless misconduct is discovered(which it was not in this case), the discharge is entry level or honorable, yes the discharged person retains veterans benefits, yes, if over 6 years served they get separation pay.

Repeating something that no one is arguing time and again does not mean your point in other areas is right.

I've already asked you to go point for point like a real debater.

You are the one who claimed she broke no law then I had to read the power of regulation and law. I have looked up the regulation, posted it, looked up your own words and posted them and you don't even have the honesty of going point for point and instead favor summaries claiming I've taken you out of context but don't even have the courage to point out the specific areas where you claim this.

When you can be honest enough to address each point and defend your direct quotes, let me know.
 
My bad.


Is that a guess or do we in fact have proof that heterosexuality arises during the embryonic phase of development, regardless of genetics?

Sorry that wasn't what I was getting at. My point was that heterosexual sex is the delivery means of genetic material to offspring regardless of the sexual orientation of the resultant offspring. That delivery method has exactly 0 to do with the actual "genetics". They are complete separate issues.

This entire line of discussion is nothing but a big fat red herring on texmaster's part to deflect from the fact that he has nothing when it comes to the actual discussion of orientation, the validity of DADT, and the ethical questions directed at the offending police officers in this article.
 
I've already asked you to go point for point like a real debater.

Yeah and we've repeatedly asked you to contribute something relevant to this forum but we are still left wanting. :shrug:
 
I'm asking for alternate theories for the preponderance of heterosexuality. Got any?

Probably for the same reason for the preponderance of right handed people.

Further, no one is really claiming that orientation(heterosexuality and homosexuality) are not genetic...we really don't know for sure, but there is plenty of evidence to support the likelihood. Genetics probably at least is a large contribute to sexual orientation. What is happening is you have some one who says heterosexuality is genetic, homosexuality is not, not sourcing either of these claims, and basing his whole argument on the fact that heterosexual sex(which is an act, and which gays can do) is needed for procreation. You are a smart person, you can see the problem in this argument.
 
So you have nothing to support your BS claims on an equal comparison. Next time just say so.

When you support your claim, you might get away with comments like this. Now it is just laughable though.
 
I've already asked you to go point for point like a real debater.

You are the one who claimed she broke no law then I had to read the power of regulation and law. I have looked up the regulation, posted it, looked up your own words and posted them and you don't even have the honesty of going point for point and instead favor summaries claiming I've taken you out of context but don't even have the courage to point out the specific areas where you claim this.

When you can be honest enough to address each point and defend your direct quotes, let me know.

Point for point was making overlong, difficult to read and follow posts. Grow up.

You posted a regulation that stated the military could discharge her for getting married. I quoted the exact section. I have also provided a ton more information, all of which you ignore. Quick question: What type discharge did the Sgt. get?
 
Nothing about police misconduct here. The issue is DADT. The military didn't ask, and she didn't tell.
what right did the police have to pass on that information?
 
Sorry, she did not keep it at home. She notified the government of her intentions by obtaining a legal marriage license. There is no wiggle room here. If she was just living with her, ok thats a much harder case to make but a marriage license? Please.
total bull****. the police had no right whatsoever to relay that information. and the military should never LOOK for that info, under current rules. you're off base here.
 
Back
Top Bottom