• 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

texmaster said:
The same question. How do you separate the two? Explain yourself.

Making a declaration doesn't prove your claim in any way.
Click to expand...

Heterosexuality is an orientation. Heterosexual sex is an act. They are different things. A gay person can have heterosexual sex, and a strait person can have homosexual sex. I can present examples of both.
 
TheNextEra said:
You're the one that made the claim that heterosexuality is genetic, it is up to YOU to support that claim. You can't. Thank you for conceding.
Click to expand...

Good luck on this. Been trying to get him to support his claims on homosexuality and heterosexuality for months, and he has supplied a total of zero sources.
 
Redress said:
Heterosexuality is an orientation. Heterosexual sex is an act. They are different things. A gay person can have heterosexual sex, and a strait person can have homosexual sex. I can present examples of both.
Click to expand...

I can't see how that is possible.... :confused:
 
TheNextEra said:
You're the one that made the claim that heterosexuality is genetic, it is up to YOU to support that claim. You can't. Thank you for conceding.
Click to expand...

I didn't concede anything little buddy.

My proof is the very nature of heterosexual sex being a requirement for procreation makes it by definition genetic.

Now, please explain if you can how you in your mind separate the two.
 
Redress said:
Heterosexuality is an orientation. Heterosexual sex is an act. They are different things. A gay person can have heterosexual sex, and a strait person can have homosexual sex. I can present examples of both.
Click to expand...

You can give examples of how some people have found sexual gratification in different ways but you cannot disprove heterosexual sex being the only means of procreation making it by definition genetic.
 
Redress said:
This is so easy it's almost embarrassing. Let's use your source(and it is a good one) to look up the word law. Since my argument is that regulations and laws are not the same thing, if the definitions are different, I am right: law legal definition of law. law synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

"In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability. Laws in the United States are made by federal, state, and local legislatures, judges, the president, state governors, and administrative agencies"

So tell me what criminal punishment was she subject to(note this has some very real requirements) or civil liability. When was her trial?
Click to expand...

Actually she can protest it in a military court of law so enjoy your fail once more Redress.

Its amazing how you ignore what is in the very thing you just quoted.

Regulation:

A governmental order having the force of law.

A rule of order having the force of law

Now please explain to us what part of that you do not understand?

If she broke nothing then how was she booted out? Explain yourself.

Just saying something is so does not make it so.
Click to expand...

Ah but I did. I gave you the definition of a regulation and its weight in the military as being equal to law which is how she was removed.

I have not ducked my own words.
Click to expand...

Yes you have and every time you refuse to address them as I did you look more and more foolish.

You read far more into them than was there. You are so hung up on this. That is part of your problem, you see what you want to see.
Click to expand...

Thats a lot of talk without addressing anything I quoted directly. Good to see you still cant support your claims.

She agreed, under DADT to not tell. She did not tell.
Click to expand...

Do we really have to run through the entire regulation again? You even quoted the section she violated.


The first is opinion, the second is accurate and documentable. They are also side notes I thought interesting.
Click to expand...

If its "documentable" then provide the documentation or is this just another BS claim of yours to duck?

You have a completely failed understanding of DADT, which, as usual you back up with no research, provide no sources, nothing but your word claiming you are right.
Click to expand...

I used your own post to do that:

Those indicators are statements(saying "I am gay" to some one in the command...see note below on this), actions(getting caught having sex with some one of the same sex, all the way down to being seen holding hands with some one of the same sex...see note 2 below), and being married.
Click to expand...

Once again you prove you cannot even remember your own posts.

Its amazing how you continue to embarass yourself when your own posts contradict what you claim moment to moment.

As I said, please let me know what face I'm talking to. It will make it far easier to address the argument you are making. At least at the moment :)
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
You can give examples of how some people have found sexual gratification in different ways but you cannot disprove heterosexual sex being the only means of procreation making it by definition genetic.
Click to expand...

And I never claimed otherwise. We are going around in this big circle, with you continuing to not provide one shred of evidence, one document, one source to prove that heterosexuality is genetic. You still do not understand the difference between heterosexuality and heterosexual sex, despite having it pointed out to you countless times. When you can document your wild assed claims, get back to me, till then this is just stupid.
 
texmaster said:
Actually she can protest it in a military court of law so enjoy your fail once more Redress.

Its amazing how you ignore what is in the very thing you just quoted.

Regulation:

A governmental order having the force of law.

A rule of order having the force of law

Now please explain to us what part of that you do not understand?

If she broke nothing then how was she booted out? Explain yourself.



Ah but I did. I gave you the definition of a regulation and its weight in the military as being equal to law which is how she was removed.



Yes you have and every time you refuse to address them as I did you look more and more foolish.



Thats a lot of talk without addressing anything I quoted directly. Good to see you still cant support your claims.



Do we really have to run through the entire regulation again? You even quoted the section she violated.




If its "documentable" then provide the documentation or is this just another BS claim of yours to duck?



I used your own post to do that:



Once again you prove you cannot even remember your own posts.

Its amazing how you continue to embarass yourself when your own posts contradict what you claim moment to moment.

As I said, please let me know what face I'm talking to. It will make it far easier to address the argument you are making. At least at the moment :)
Click to expand...

You as usual are being incredibly dishonest. You are even taking my words out of context to try and prove your point. I think I have proven that I have done my research on this topic, I can document every claim I make, and I have in this and other threads.

I will finish this with a couple quick questions and the answers, and let you continue to make your wild and unsupported objections to your hearts content.

Under what circumstances is a gay soldier subject to NJP or courtmarshal under DADT? When there is a charge of misconduct. Is being gay, or saying you are gay, or gay actions, or being married considered misconduct? No.

DADT holds that homosexuality is incompatible with military life(which in my opinion is retarded, but that is a separate thing), and as such a person who gives one of the three indicators mentioned in earlier posts will be discharged. The discharge is not a punishment for misdeeds, its just because the military does not want them there. The discharge, unless there is misconduct will be either an entry level separation(under 6 months served) or honorable. A DADT discharged person still has full access to veteran's benefits. A servicemenber with over 6 years service who is discharged under DADT and gets an honorable is eligible for separation pay.
 
I don't see what the nature of sexuality has anything to do with gays in the military.

If it's a choice, gays should be able to serve openly.
If it's genetic, gays should be able to serve openly.

This isn't a social policy like gay marriage, this is a national security policy. America is not best served by alienating gays.
 
Jerry said:
I don't see what the nature of sexuality has anything to do with gays in the military.

If it's a choice, gays should be able to serve openly.
If it's genetic, gays should be able to serve openly.

This isn't a social policy like gay marriage, this is a national security policy. America is not best served by alienating gays.
Click to expand...

It's a rare happening, but every so often I agree with a Jerry post. This post is one of those rare animals.
 
texmaster said:
Now, please explain if you can how you in your mind separate the two.
Click to expand...

An act and orientation are two separate things. Heterosexuality is an orientation and sexual activity is an act.

Now awaiting your proof that heterosexuality is genetic since sexual ACTIVITY is not proof of genetics.
 
TheNextEra said:
An act and orientation are two separate things. Heterosexuality is an orientation and sexual activity is an act.

Now awaiting your proof that heterosexuality is genetic since sexual ACTIVITY is not proof of genetics.
Click to expand...

He doesn't understand the difference between reproduction and genetics or how they interrelate.

If he is going to claim heterosexuality is genetic on the grounds that heterosexual intercourse is the only way to procreate (a blatant lie in and of itself), then he has to automatically accept homosexuality as genetic because homosexuals are only created through heterosexual intercourse, too.

This is totally illogical to anyone who understands genetics and the difference between an act and an orientation, but no one ever accused texmaster of being logical to start with.
 
jallman said:
He doesn't understand the difference between reproduction and genetics or how they interrelate.

If he is going to claim heterosexuality is genetic on the grounds that heterosexual intercourse is the only way to procreate (a blatant lie in and of itself), then he has to automatically accept homosexuality as genetic because homosexuals are only created through heterosexual intercourse, too.

This is totally illogical to anyone who understands genetics and the difference between an act and an orientation, but no one ever accused texmaster of being logical to start with.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that creating homosexuals through heterosexual intercourse while in a war-zone will earn you both article 15s :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
DADT is bad policy, but the cops weren't in the wrong here.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were.

The Sgt. was NOT the target of their investigation. In any case, the police have ZERO right to reveal her sexual orientation to ANYBODY.

The police behaved maliciously and with extreme malice. As such, they are wrong and they need to be held to account.
 
texmaster said:
Oh yes. So if they aren't there for one crime they have to ignore another? Have you been wathcing Law and Order again for your legal advice?
Click to expand...

The civilian authorities are NOT ALLOWED to enforce military law. Moreover, the military ignores gays for the most part.

Since the police where there to investigate the Sgt. They were after her partner. Therefore, going after the Sgt. is OUT OF LINE. Revealing personal information to the military .... no matter the reason ... is OUT OF LINE. It's an invasion of privacy.

The police violated the public trust when they called the Air Force to report the Sgt. was gay. It's not their business, it's not the Air Force's business. The police acted improperly.

Regardless of what the Sgt. did or did not do, the police have ZERO reason to out her to the military.

The police violated the public trust and they are NOT worthy of wearing the badge.


texmaster said:
Really. So what law did they break? Go ahead and explain that to us.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Vader said:
The civilian authorities are NOT ALLOWED to enforce military law. Moreover, the military ignores gays for the most part.

Since the police where there to investigate the Sgt. They were after her partner. Therefore, going after the Sgt. is OUT OF LINE. Revealing personal information to the military .... no matter the reason ... is OUT OF LINE. It's an invasion of privacy.

The police violated the public trust when they called the Air Force to report the Sgt. was gay. It's not their business, it's not the Air Force's business. The police acted improperly.

Regardless of what the Sgt. did or did not do, the police have ZERO reason to out her to the military.

The police violated the public trust and they are NOT worthy of wearing the badge.




See above.
Click to expand...

They didn't....
They simply notified the proper authorities of a violation......;)
The police were doing the nation a service by bringing this serious infraction to light.....;)
 
Partisan said:
They didn't....
They simply notified the proper authorities of a violation......;)
The police were doing the nation a service by bringing this serious infraction to light.....;)
Click to expand...

Wrong.

She was NOT their suspect and they had NO BUSINESS outing her.

Shame on you.
 
TheNextEra said:
An act and orientation are two separate things. Heterosexuality is an orientation and sexual activity is an act.

Now awaiting your proof that heterosexuality is genetic since sexual ACTIVITY is not proof of genetics.
Click to expand...

This has been explained to texmaster MANY times. It's his talking point. Without it, he has no argument, so he MUST hold onto it.

As I've said many times, there is a difference between procreation and genetics. The two are NOT the same thing.
 
Redress said:
You as usual are being incredibly dishonest.
Click to expand...

You refuse to go point for point and you have the gall to call me dishonest? Take a good look in the mirror Redress.

You are even taking my words out of context to try and prove your point.
Click to expand...

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?

I think I have proven that I have done my research on this topic, I can document every claim I make, and I have in this and other threads.
Click to expand...

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

I will finish this with a couple quick questions and the answers, and let you continue to make your wild and unsupported objections to your hearts content.
Click to expand...

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

Under what circumstances is a gay soldier subject to NJP or courtmarshal under DADT? When there is a charge of misconduct. Is being gay, or saying you are gay, or gay actions, or being married considered misconduct? No.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Once again I point to your own post:

Those indicators are statements(saying "I am gay" to some one in the command...see note below on this), actions(getting caught having sex with some one of the same sex, all the way down to being seen holding hands with some one of the same sex...see note 2 below), and being married.
Click to expand...

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

DADT holds that homosexuality is incompatible with military life(which in my opinion is retarded, but that is a separate thing), and as such a person who gives one of the three indicators mentioned in earlier posts will be discharged.
Click to expand...

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

The discharge is not a punishment for misdeeds, its just because the military does not want them there. The discharge, unless there is misconduct will be either an entry level separation(under 6 months served) or honorable. A DADT discharged person still has full access to veteran's benefits. A servicemenber with over 6 years service who is discharged under DADT and gets an honorable is eligible for separation pay.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
An act and orientation are two separate things. Heterosexuality is an orientation and sexual activity is an act.

Now awaiting your proof that heterosexuality is genetic since sexual ACTIVITY is not proof of genetics.
Click to expand...

I know you really want to separate the two but they are and always will be linked because it is the one AND ONLY biological function that allows for natural procreation.

You cannot separate them. To do so is to make the laughable claim that being heterosexual was just a coincidence and not something nature intended when every sex ed class you will ever take in your entire life will tell you that male and female heterosexual sex is the only way to procreate.

The very fact you cannot find a natural purpose for homosexual sex is the icing on the cake for a failing argument on your side.
 
texmaster said:
I know you really want to separate the two but they are and always will be linked because it is the one AND ONLY biological function that allows for natural procreation.

You cannot separate them. To do so is to make the laughable claim that being heterosexual was just a coincidence and not something nature intended when every sex ed class you will ever take in your entire life will tell you that male and female heterosexual sex is the only way to procreate.

The very fact you cannot find a natural purpose for homosexual sex is the icing on the cake for a failing argument on your side.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculously uninformed. Primate studies have shown that one and only biological function of sex is not to procreate. Higher primates can and do create a distinction between them sex for fun and sex for procreation. Bonobo studies have shown they are seen as strengthening social bonds in groups. Now please tell us that establishing social bonds is not natural among primates. Sex is a means. Not an ends.

Bonobo Sex and Society

The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations – and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.
Click to expand...

So there you go. Proof that in nature, the one and only function of sex is not to procreate. At the very least it proves human beings are not the only ones who see it as such.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
This is ridiculously uninformed. Primate studies have shown that one and only biological function of sex is not to procreate. Higher primates can and do create a distinction between them sex for fun and sex for procreation. Bonobo studies have shown they are seen as strengthening social bonds in groups. Now please tell us that establishing social bonds is not natural among primates. Sex is a means. Not an ends.

Bonobo Sex and Society
Click to expand...

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

Go right ahead.


So there you go. Proof that in nature, the one and only function of sex is not to procreate. At the very least it proves human beings are not the only ones who see it as such.
Click to expand...

Now you are simply lying about what I said. I NEVER said that sex's only function is to procreate.

I said that heterosexual sex is the only MEANS of natural procreation.

You really need to pay attention to what I said and not misinterpret it.

And since you decided to join the conversation the same question is posed to you. Please list any natural function of homosexual sex.

I'll wait.
 
texmaster said:
I know you really want to separate the two but they are and always will be linked because it is the one AND ONLY biological function that allows for natural procreation.

You cannot separate them. To do so is to make the laughable claim that being heterosexual was just a coincidence and not something nature intended when every sex ed class you will ever take in your entire life will tell you that male and female heterosexual sex is the only way to procreate.

The very fact you cannot find a natural purpose for homosexual sex is the icing on the cake for a failing argument on your side.
Click to expand...

You just continue to demonstrate how you neither understand the concepts of procreation, genetics, and inherited characteristics. The former is an ACT, a BEHAVIOR. The latter are things formed from genetic material. You are embarrassing yourself every time you post this foolishness. Now, I am aware that you have refused to respond to my posts, but I will ask you again... AND, I'm going to ask other DP members to help me out here by ALSO asking you this question until you respond.

If, as you claim, heterosexuality is genetic because one can only procreate through heterosexuality, please identify the gene or genetic material that identifies one as heterosexual.
 
texmaster said:
If you are going to continue to deny the truth please list any natural function of homosexual sex.

Go right ahead.




Now you are simply lying about what I said. I NEVER said that sex's only function is to procreate.

I said that heterosexual sex is the only MEANS of natural procreation.

You really need to pay attention to what I said and not misinterpret it.

And since you decided to join the conversation the same question is posed to you. Please list any natural function of homosexual sex.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Please define natural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom