• 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!

'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal in doubt

dadt will probably be repealed in our lifetimes

but never so long as obtuse, obnoxious obama is president

legislatively, he shot his wad

and his doj is arguing AGAINST the activists

sorry
 
disneydude said:
It won't matter if she does.....eventually Freedom and justice with prevail in the United States against bigotry and injustice.

America is the land of freedom and opportunity and those who oppose it will utimately be defeated as always.
Click to expand...

Not if it infringes on the freedom of others...........
 
CriticalThought said:
Because a highly decorated nurse who has treated the wounded off the battlefield is a grave threat to unit cohesion and military readiness? Yup, I can see how you could justify spending tax dollars to appeal that decision. Do you ever get tired of yourself?
Click to expand...



Not at all, she is a woman, a nurse and has her own room......No problem for me.........
 
The Prof said:
dadt will probably be repealed in our lifetimes

but never so long as obtuse, obnoxious obama is president

legislatively, he shot his wad

and his doj is arguing AGAINST the activists

sorry
Click to expand...

Um...okay. Let me give you a little civics lesson. You see, there are these three branches of government. The Legistlative branch makes the law. The Judicial Branch determines whether the law is Constitutional. And the Exectutive branch enforces the law.

Just not sure whether you were aware of that fact that they teach in 5th grade.
 
Navy Pride said:
Not at all, she is a woman, a nurse and has her own room......No problem for me.........
Click to expand...

I lived in campus housing most of my college career. Never on any housing application did it ask my sexual orientation. Never did I have problems with my roommates. When I shared showers at the gym, I never had problems with any of the people there.

Are you not the least bit ashamed that college freshman can handle rooming and sharing showers with openly gay men and you cannot? You have to make that big of a deal out of something that nobody in civilian life does?
 
CriticalThought said:
Um...okay. Let me give you a little civics lesson.
Click to expand...

teach it to the national center for lesbian rights, servicemembers united, servicemembers legal defense network, human rights network, the log cabin republicans...
 
CriticalThought said:
I lived in campus housing most of my college career. Never on any housing application did it ask my sexual orientation. Never did I have problems with my roommates. When I shared showers at the gym, I never had problems with any of the people there.
Click to expand...

you're only one person

look in the mirror and count
 
The Prof said:
you're only one person

look in the mirror and count
Click to expand...

Yeah, the news is rife with the gay roommate epidemic facing society. The YMCA is doing everything in its power to protect the fragile egos of the heterosexual men who use their showering facilities. Truly society is on the verge of collapse because gay men room and shower with straight men. It's anarchy.

Prof, I can't help but smirk at about half the stuff you post. Do you really think it through?
 
The Prof said:
teach it to the national center for lesbian rights, servicemembers united, servicemembers legal defense network, human rights network, the log cabin republicans...
Click to expand...

I don't think you should be lecturing anyone on civics. As I recall, you believe an independent judiciary exists to serve state majorities.
 
Navy Pride said:
This is great news for the guys the repeal of DADT actually affects and not the bureacrats or liberals in Washington..........

'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal in doubt - Josh Gerstein and Scott Wong - POLITICO.com


By JOSH GERSTEIN & SCOTT WONG | 9/21/10 12:08 PM EDT
An effort to repeal the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy was poised to go down to defeat Tuesday afternoon, with Senate Democrats and Republicans squaring off in a party line procedural vote.
Click to expand...

This is one of those FEW times that the Democrats are right. Do you have any idea of how badly our intelligence was compromised when we got rid of most of our Arabic translators, just because they happened to be gay?

Of course, this is also one of those MANY times that the Democrats have shown themselves to be total political ******s. LOL.
 
Last edited:
I love how there isn't a single scientific study to support DADT or removing gays from the service. In fact you wouldnt need a scientific study on allowing gays to serve, because they already do serve, you'd need one on them serving openly. But one doesn't exist, yet so many people "know" with no basis in any kind of data that repealing DADT will destroy the military.
 
Wiseone said:
I love how there isn't a single scientific study to support DADT or removing gays from the service. In fact you wouldnt need a scientific study on allowing gays to serve, because they already do serve, you'd need one on them serving openly. But one doesn't exist, yet so many people "know" with no basis in any kind of data that repealing DADT will destroy the military.
Click to expand...

It is because this is one of the only legal methods the right has to openly discriminate against someone else... you all got rid of segregation and that left women and gays.. women got almost equal rights with abortion, and now they only have the evil gays left to hate.

Hence they need to "invent" excuses like "studies" made by homophobic religious right wing organisations and so on..
 
Law of unintended consequences is basically the bread and butter of conservatism. If you get people to fear the unknown then they will let a bad situation stick around for the possibility that things could get worse. Only after it has gotten so bad that it can't be ignored will people begin to challenge it.

And I think the Witt standard may be the pathway to bring this thing down. Once the nation begins to see hundreds of individual court cases of gay people who were discharged from the military in a manner that actually hurts unit cohesion and military readiness and the citizens begin to grow angry that the litigation that is costing enormous amounts of taxpayer's money, then there will finally be the pressure on Congress to repeal this broken and retarded policy.

At this point, the law of unintended consequences is working against conservatives. The longer this policy remains on the books, the less it will seem that they care about our military and national security.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
The Legistlative branch makes the law. The Judicial Branch determines whether the law is Constitutional. And the Exectutive branch enforces the law.
Click to expand...

this executive does not appear disposed to the enforcement of those judicials

read the links
 
danarhea said:
This is one of those FEW times that the Democrats are right. Do you have any idea of how badly our intelligence was compromised when we got rid of most of our Arabic translators, just because they happened to be gay?

Of course, this is also one of those MANY times that the Democrats have shown themselves to be total political ******s. LOL.
Click to expand...

We didn't lose most of our Arabic translators, because they were gay.
 
Navy Pride said:
My comments about this subject are about gay men in the Navy aboard ship.........I don't know what goes on aboard ship in the female quarters and could care less......I believe a lot of women are switch hit anyhow.............
Click to expand...

Redress is most likely a guy since Redress was on an aircraft carrier sometime between '87 and '93. Women were not allowed to serve aboard aircraft carriers until 1994.

However, it doesn't matter because the ban on openly serving homosexuals is not gender specific. The military will not just lift the ban for one gender when it does finally go away, it be lifted for both men and women homosexuals.
 
apdst said:
We didn't lose most of our Arabic translators, because they were gay.
Click to expand...

yeah, being gay had absolutely nothing to do with it. If you are arabic, it's almost expected that you be gay. funny that Islam forbids homosexuality but damn near every arabic male practices buggery.
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah, being gay had absolutely nothing to do with it. If you are arabic, it's almost expected that you be gay. funny that Islam forbids homosexuality but damn near every arabic male practices buggery.
Click to expand...

Um...that is complete bull.

Arabic males commonly practice a very brotherly and affectionate love with one another but that is not homosexuality. That has a lot more to do with the strict sepration of the sexes in that culture that anything else. Also, most of the Arabic translators who were discharged were not Arabic.
 
CriticalThought said:
Um...that is complete bull.

Arabic males commonly practice a very brotherly and affectionate love with one another but that is not homosexuality. That has a lot more to do with the strict sepration of the sexes in that culture that anything else. Also, most of the Arabic translators who were discharged were not Arabic.
Click to expand...

Nor, did the gay, Arabic translators that were discharged makeup a majority of the Arabic translators in the US military.
 
roguenuke said:
Redress is most likely a guy since Redress was on an aircraft carrier sometime between '87 and '93. Women were not allowed to serve aboard aircraft carriers until 1994.

However, it doesn't matter because the ban on openly serving homosexuals is not gender specific. The military will not just lift the ban for one gender when it does finally go away, it be lifted for both men and women homosexuals.
Click to expand...

That, or she's lieing about her service. She needs to answer up.
 
The Prof said:
this executive does not appear disposed to the enforcement of those judicials

read the links
Click to expand...

best I can tell, you might need to read links more carefully and with more critical thought involved. I'm just saying . . . .

;)
 
CriticalThought said:
Um...that is complete bull.

Arabic males commonly practice a very brotherly and affectionate love with one another but that is not homosexuality. That has a lot more to do with the strict sepration of the sexes in that culture that anything else. Also, most of the Arabic translators who were discharged were not Arabic.
Click to expand...


I guess if you want to define ****ing each other up the ass as "brotherly and affectionate" you might have a point.
 
roguenuke said:
Redress is most likely a guy since Redress was on an aircraft carrier sometime between '87 and '93. Women were not allowed to serve aboard aircraft carriers until 1994.

However, it doesn't matter because the ban on openly serving homosexuals is not gender specific. The military will not just lift the ban for one gender when it does finally go away, it be lifted for both men and women homosexuals.
Click to expand...

First of all Redress is a female..............Secondly I know nothing about lesbians in the Navy....My problem is with gay men serving openly aboard ship.......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom