• 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!

Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

CaptainCourtesy said:
Kinda like heterosexuality. You always seem to forget that fact.
Click to expand...

Not for a second. The biological sexual reaction in people is specific to preparation for procreation. Hetero or homo the biological process is the same and since the very act of procreation is heterosexual sex not to mention the sexual organs themselves designed specifically for heterosexual sex proving a genetic link for heterosexuality is easy. Your burden which you continually fail to capitalize on is proving that biological sexual reaction is different for homosexuals which we all know it is not. That is the flaw in your claims to compare the two equally on a genetic basis.

That is what you keep avoiding because you can't argue against it.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
LOL No you weren't. You used an interpretation by another organization.

I don't know what planet you have been living on but here we define words by how the dictionary defines them, not some group's interpretation.
Click to expand...
See if your dictionary has an entry for "terms of art."
 
texmaster said:
Not for a second. The biological sexual reaction in people is specific to preparation for procreation. Hetero or homo the biological process is the same and since the very act of procreation is heterosexual sex not to mention the sexual organs themselves designed specifically for heterosexual sex proving a genetic link for heterosexuality is easy. Your burden which you continually fail to capitalize on is proving that biological sexual reaction is different for homosexuals which we all know it is not. That is the flaw in your claims to compare the two equally on a genetic basis.

That is what you keep avoiding because you can't argue against it.
Click to expand...

Sooo...the only time any female should ever want sex is when she is ovulating and fertile? Women past the age of menopause have no sex drives whatsoever, since thy can no longer bear children, and men will only find women who are ovulating sexually attractive? Pick another argument.
 
OscarB63 said:
you are referring to UCMJ article 125

Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.


it's not just the UCMJ. look up the word sodomy in any dictionary and see what you get. most of them mention anal or oral copulation between persons or a person and an animal.

One would hope that, in light of this ruling that the UCMJ would be ammended. I doubt if there are very many heterosexuals in the military that haven't violated 125 at one point or another.

But leave in the bit about animals...that's just nasty :2sick1:

As far as DADT, I think it was a stupid idea all along. I have served with and supervised a number of gay soldiers during my time. I didn't ask, they didn't tell...but I could tell and I really didn't give a rat's ass as long as they were doing their job.

The flaming homos that most of the kneejerkers fear are not the kind of people that would ever join the military in the first place, so no one has to worry about being sodomized in the barracks shower.

getting rid of DADT will not result in a massive flood of gays rushing to join the military. most of the gays who would be inclined to join already do so, they just try to keep their status secret.

Any man, woman, gay, or lesbian that has the courage and fortitude to serve their country should be allowed to do so openly and with pride.
Click to expand...

Well said brother!!

Still reading the thread, but wanted to chome in here first!



Tim-
 
I've read alot of responses in this thread, and a common theme in post that are against repealing DADT is that it is social engineering.
But the military is made up of people from the American populous that is willing, and able to serve. And since being gay hinders neither of those, then isn't DADT social engineering as well?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Kinda like heterosexuality. You always seem to forget that fact.
Click to expand...

Everybody knows that homosexuality came from a bad crate of fruit that got mixed with a melancholy fly from South America in 1982.
 
Coronado said:
The Ninth Circuit is a federal court, not a state court.
Click to expand...

.....in California. The same state that voted against gay marriage and declared it not a matter of constitutional right. The military is not the bad guy in this. We are merely the source of change for the rest of you.
 
Your Star said:
I've read alot of responses in this thread, and a common theme in post that are against repealing DADT is that it is social engineering.
But the military is made up of people from the American populous that is willing, and able to serve. And since being gay hinders neither of those, then isn't DADT social engineering as well?
Click to expand...

It's not social engineering. Society has for the most part learned to accept gays, if not "embrace" them(Sorry MSgt). It's the military that has to catch up with society.
 
MSgt said:
.....in California. The same state that voted against gay marriage and declared it not a matter of constitutional right. The military is not the bad guy in this. We are merely the source of change for the rest of you.
Click to expand...

The military did not make DADT, so it is clearly not the military's "fault".
 
MSgt said:
.....in California. The same state that voted against gay marriage and declared it not a matter of constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Relevance? They are bound by federal precedence, not California precedence. You do understand that these are two different systems, right?
MSgt said:
The military is not the bad guy in this.
Click to expand...
Never said that it was.
MSgt said:
We are merely the source of change for the rest of you.
Click to expand...
That's special.
 
You know what I found shocking about this thread?

I haven't see anybody yarking about how we as a nation are all concerned about pissing Muslims off by burning the Koran, but we aren't concerned about pissing Muslims off by letting our gay soldiers serve openly.

:lol:


TED,
Who doesn't think you can compare the two, but expected somebody to...
 
Coronado said:
Relevance? They are bound by federal precedence, not California precedence. You do understand that these are two different systems, right?
Click to expand...

Sure. Still the same hypocritical state. Not willing to really tackle the will of the people, but all about desiging the definition of the military? It is far easier to tackle an organization that will enforce rules and laws upon those who can only dissent so far than it is to tackle a social prescription upon civilian people who have the right to reply with a "**** you."

Coronado said:
That's special.
Click to expand...

I guess. We defend the right of people to disrespect us and stand as an organization to force social change for the rest of you. We are toilet paper. I always got a kick out of "support the troop." It's a joke.
 
MSgt said:
I guess. We defend the right of people to disrespect us and stand as an organization to force social change for the rest of you. We are toilet paper. I always got a kick out of "support the troop." It's a joke.
Click to expand...
You signed up for it voluntarily, and apparently repeatedly. :shrug:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
To hear him tell it, he likes being used and abused and being paid for it.

Personally, if I were inclined that way, I'd find me a fetish club. :lol:
Click to expand...
Apparently the benefits outweigh the costs. Otherwise he wouldn't reenlist unless he just wants to be a recipient of pity.

Parts of my job suck, too. Not enough to make me want to leave it though, so it's really not that bad.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You know what I found shocking about this thread?

I haven't see anybody yarking about how we as a nation are all concerned about pissing Muslims off by burning the Koran, but we aren't concerned about pissing Muslims off by letting our gay soldiers serve openly.

:lol:


TED,
Who doesn't think you can compare the two, but expected somebody to...
Click to expand...

I always thought that the best way to intimidate the Islamist terrorists is to tell them if they are caught they would be guarded by openly gay men or lesbians.
 
TurtleDude said:
I always thought that the best way to intimidate the Islamist terrorists is to tell them if they are caught they would be guarded by openly gay men or lesbians.
Click to expand...
I believe I'd pay to see that.

Only thing that would be better is if they had Paris Hilton-esque chihuahuas to use for interrogations.
 
Coronado said:
You signed up for it voluntarily, and apparently repeatedly. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I got no problem with the military. It's the lack of civilian honor, integrity and complete ignorance in this country that dissapoints me. "Support the Troop" is a civilian disgrace.
 
MSgt said:
I got no problem with the military. It's the lack of civilian honor, integrity and complete ignorance in this country that dissapoints me. "Support the Troop" is a civilian disgrace.
Click to expand...
Ah, right. Us versus them. Civilians are ungrateful pukes, etc.

You've just demonstrated one reason we have civilian control over the military.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
To hear him tell it, he likes being used and abused and being paid for it.

Personally, if I were inclined that way, I'd find me a fetish club. :lol:
Click to expand...

And where have I stated that I like being abused? I like the adventure of my job. It doesn't mean that I'm stupid enough to believe that the politicians of this country deserve the military they have. Or that they know what they are doing on a daily basis. You see, I make it a point to understand my role and the enemy I face. You would think politicians would at least do the same as they haphazardly run this country into the dirt. You like how they are running this country down? This is your kind. Not mine. Most Americans don't deserve what they have. They were merely born lucky and live their lives celebrating their ignorance and stupidity.
 
Coronado said:
Ah, right. Us versus them. Civilians are ungrateful pukes, etc.

You've just demonstrated one reason we have civilian control over the military.
Click to expand...

Well, pukes anyway. Plenty pukes are greatful. And it's civilian control over the military that has screwed everything up since WWII. Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
The ruling: http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/4f03e468a737002e8825779a00040406/$FILE/CV04-08425-VAP%28Ex%29-Opinion.pdf

I am not a legal expert, but the reasoning looks sound to me. I repeat though that I am not a legal expert.

The ruling is fascinating reading, if just for the stories of several people who where witnesses that where discharged due to DADT. A couple of the stories are insane...

Once assigned as kennel support to the canine unit and under Chief Petty Officer Toussaint's command, Rocha was hazed and harassed constantly, to an unconscionable degree and in shocking fashion. When the eighteen-year-old Rocha declined to participate in the unit's practice of visiting prostitutes, he was taunted, asked if he was a "faggot," and told to prove his heterosexuality by consorting with prostitutes.

...

Toussaint ordered all of the other men in the unit to beat Rocha on the latter's nineteenth birthday.

...

On another occasion, Toussaint had Rocha leashed like a dog, paraded around the grounds in front of other soldiers, tied to a chair, forcefed dog food, and left in a dog kennel covered with feces."
Click to expand...

Note that the above story has little bearing on DADT itself, and I think such hazing mostly does not happen any more...but good god people.

An example of how easy it is to get discharged under DADT:

The rumor originated because, while off duty one day in January 2002, Nicholson was writing a letter to a man with whom he had a relationship before joining the Army; Nicholson was writing the letter in Portuguese to prevent other servicemembers from reading it, because it contained references that could reveal Nicholson's sexual orientation. (Trial Tr. 1134:10-23, 1161:10-1163:7, July 20, 2010.) Despite Nicholson's precautions, another servicemember caught sight of the letter while chatting with Nicholson. (Id.) After the two had been talking for a few minutes, Nicholson realized she was one of the few persons he knew in the Army who also could also read Portuguese;
Click to expand...
 
MSgt said:
Well, pukes anyway. Plenty pukes are greatful. And it's civilian control over the military that has screwed everything up since WWII. Congratulations. This country needs a coup.
Click to expand...
I rest my case.

I would imagine a nearby shrink would be able to help a person with grandiose delusions such as these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom