• 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' repeal fails in Senate

Patria Antiqua said:
I'm not going to "live" with anything, you sanctimonious asshole.

I didn't say anything about recruiting numbers. I stated, I feel correctly, that discouraging talented homosexuals from enlisting is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Didn't you get tossed for the name calling before? It is your opinion that discouraging talented homosexuals from enlisting is a bad thing, but it isn't hurting recruiting. There is no evidence that a gay person is any more qualified than the individuals being recruited and filling those positions.
 
Conservative said:
So apparently that was your quote and you do believe DADT impacts recruiting? Apparently military leadership disagrees with you as do the recruiting results. Amazing that whenver there is a thread on homosexulality it brings out everyone here promoting that agenda. I prefer leaving this to the all volunteer military to make the decision and it does appear that DADT repeal is dead. Live with it.
Click to expand...

...but the majority of the military says it wont make a difference. Oh, wait, you meant you "prefer leaving this to the all volunteer military who agrees with your opinion to make the decision!"

"I don't want it" is not suficient grounds to deny people rights, even in the military. You have to show what harm granting those rights would cause, and the pentagon study clearly shows that there is no significant harm as ~90% of people who have served with homosexuals say it didn't make a difference or was positive.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Is that your role, to hire people? Maybe there are gays but probably since the vast majority in this country aren't gay, my bet is you can find someone equally or better qualified.
Click to expand...

No, on active duty, I was in one of those highly undermanned jobs. In fact, it is still so undermanned that I can get back in at the same paygrade right now if I wanted to, while other prior service are being turned away almost everywhere or at least have to wait over a year if they even are eligible, and most have to take a lower rank.

And, no, there are not that many equally qualified or better people for most of those undermanned jobs. That is the point. The military wants to keep those that they have.
 
There is absolutely no good reason any one of you can ever come up with, as to why a gay person shouldn't be able to serve openly in the military.

In countries where Gays serve openly, I have never heard it was a reason someone wouldn't sign up.

It's bull****.

That's the word, I stick to it.

VIVA!
 
SirPwn4lot said:
Basement reference? Everyone calls everyone around here asshats. Reverend Hellhound did it just a few hrs ago.

On the contrary, polls are often very accurate, given that they follow a certain set of guidelines, which Gallup does.

I guess we can't trust any polls then, you can no longer claim that the American people are on your side, we have no idea what the population thinks about the next election, Obama's approval rating might be at 90% for all we know. The polls are so unreliable that there's routinely over 17% error, even though the 95% confidence interval for this poll is +/- 4%, who cares, lets just call it split down the middle.

I still want a proper, statistical definition of "white trash", and stats showing that 80% of this category support the Democrats.

I had no idea people like you existed until I came to this thread, I thought people at least tried to put truth before blind protection of their dogma. How naive I was.
Click to expand...

Oh, I exist, I assure you. :)

White trash... Hmmm.. yeah tough to control for, that's for sure, but how about we lump the welfare loving crowd into one big category and call them all "trash". Now that can include blacks, Latino's, and whites. Now, be careful to control for the truly needy, these people don't count, and can skew your analysis.

There are good polls, and there are poor ones. The first most important requisite for a good poll is the relative grasp those being polled have on the issue. As demonstrated here in this thread among what would normally be considered a fairly educated crowd, we see a large divergence and even disagreement over exactly what the issue is, or should be. Overlay that microcosm to the macrocosm of the "trash", and general voting public, and I suspect that this poll by Gallup isn't as accurate as it might seem, or declare.

That's all I'm saying..


Tim-
 
Deuce said:
...but the majority of the military says it wont make a difference. Oh, wait, you meant you "prefer leaving this to the all volunteer military who agrees with your opinion to make the decision!"
Click to expand...

Looks to me like the Congress is speaking as well, oh, wait, it doesn't support your position therefore obviously it is wrong. DADT is dead, live with it.
 
Conservative said:
Didn't you get tossed for the name calling before? It is your opinion that discouraging talented homosexuals from enlisting is a bad thing, but it isn't hurting recruiting. There is no evidence that a gay person is any more qualified than the individuals being recruited and filling those positions.
Click to expand...
YES, now you have it.

Why would any agency want to discourage talent from joining its ranks? Why would anyone want the military to wear that albatross around its neck?

And yes, I've been reprimanded before for name-calling. It's merely because I don't tolerate people speaking to me as though they're putting me in my place. If the moderators take issue, que sera, sera.
 
Jetboogieman said:
There is absolutely no good reason any one of you can ever come up with, as to why a gay person shouldn't be able to serve openly in the military.

In countries where Gays serve openly, I have never heard it was a reason someone wouldn't sign up.

It's bull****.

That's the word, I stick to it.

VIVA!
Click to expand...

Who says they cannot serve?
 
Conservative said:
Looks to me like the Congress is speaking as well, oh, wait, it doesn't support your position therefore obviously it is wrong. DADT is dead, live with it.
Click to expand...

Those like MCCain who opposed it. Did so because he believed they had to study the effects of repealing it, and that the military had to say it was ok.

Both those things have come back, and they say its fine.

Why do you still oppose?

People like you will live in the history books as the ones who stood against the right tide of history. Have fun in that place dinosaur.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
YES, now you have it.

Why would any agency want to discourage talent from joining its ranks? Why would anyone want the military to wear that albatross around its neck?

And yes, I've been reprimanded before for name-calling. It's merely because I don't tolerate people speaking to me as though they're putting me in my place. If the moderators take issue, que sera, sera.
Click to expand...

Because obviously they don't believe that the talented gay person is better than the straight person enlisting. The passion for this issue is absolutely amazing to me and the question is why? How does having a gay person in the military or not affect you?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Those like MCCain who opposed it. Did so because he believed they had to study the effects of repealing it, and that the military had to say it was ok.

Both those things have come back, and they say its fine.

Why do you still oppose?

People like you will live in the history books as the ones who stood against the right tide of history. Have fun in that place dinosaur.
Click to expand...

Whether I oppose it or not is irrelevant, I don't have a voice in the issue. I quite frankly support our military and leave that for them along with the Congress to decide. There are two things that I worry about, national security and the economy, nothing else matters. This to me is insignificant and better left to the military to decide.
 
Conservative said:
What undermanned jobs are there that a gay recruit can do better than a straight?
Click to expand...

First I didn't say that gays will do any job better just because they are gay. Different people do some things better than others, it depends on the individual, not their sexuality.

The Navy nuclear program is struggling to recruit people that are able to make it through the school and stay in. They are always undermanned. During my time in, I knew 3 nukes that were discharged under DADT. It costs a lot of money to just train a nuke, not including enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, plus nukes get E-4 within 6-8 months of joining automatically and special duty pay. That's a lot of money to lose because of a discriminatory policy.
 
Conservative said:
Whether I oppose it or not is irrelevant, I don't have a voice in the issue. I quite frankly support our military and leave that for them along with the Congress to decide. There are two things that I worry about, national security and the economy, nothing else matters. This to me is insignificant and better left to the military to decide.
Click to expand...

The military has decided, they have said its fine. Congress still opposes, and so do you.

It's bull****.
 
Conservative said:
So apparently that was your quote and you do believe DADT impacts recruiting? Apparently military leadership disagrees with you as do the recruiting results. Amazing that whenver there is a thread on homosexulality it brings out everyone here promoting that agenda. I prefer leaving this to the all volunteer military to make the decision and it does appear that DADT repeal is dead. Live with it.
Click to expand...

It's a bit premature to make that call. Sen. Joe Manchin has proven to be quite a roadblock, but there is no saying how far Republican support for repeal extends if it is a stand alone issue.

Honestly, even if repeal is dead for the next 2 years, we can expect both presidential candidates in 2012 to favor repeal because there is such popular support for it, both within the military and in the public at large, and there is no indication that is going to change. Even the military leaders who are most staunchly opposed to repeal now are so because we are currently engaged in 2 wars, and so as we continue to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, we will probably see the last support for this policy diminish significantly.
 
Conservative said:
Because obviously they don't believe that the talented gay person is better than the straight person enlisting. The passion for this issue is absolutely amazing to me and the question is why? How does having a gay person in the military or not affect you?
Click to expand...
Ask the people who support DADT, or the soldiers who, apparently, don't give a flying toss.

And no, it's because they have this ridiculous chain tied around their neck.
 
roguenuke said:
First I didn't say that gays will do any job better just because they are gay. Different people do some things better than others, it depends on the individual, not their sexuality.

The Navy nuclear program is struggling to recruit people that are able to make it through the school and stay in. They are always undermanned. During my time in, I knew 3 nukes that were discharged under DADT. It costs a lot of money to just train a nuke, not including enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, plus nukes get E-4 within 6-8 months of joining automatically and special duty pay. That's a lot of money to lose because of a discriminatory policy.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that there is a shortage in any field and that shortage is due to gays dropping out? Looks to me like the recruiting hasn't been hurt.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Ask the people who support DADT, or the soldiers who, apparently, don't give a flying toss.

And no, it's because they have this ridiculous chain tied around their neck.
Click to expand...

DADT isn't going to be repealed. Why is this such an issue for you? Are you looking for the benefits the military has to offer? That would be the only reason for such passion.
 
Conservative said:
Because obviously they don't believe that the talented gay person is better than the straight person enlisting. The passion for this issue is absolutely amazing to me and the question is why? How does having a gay person in the military or not affect you?
Click to expand...

If you had to stand more watches because of an outdated, discriminatory policy that never had any proof to support it being in place in the first place, you'd see how it can affect some people.

Not to mention, we are supposed to live in the greatest, most free country in the world, yet we still have this policy that promotes intolerance and discrimination. That looks really bad on our country.
 
CriticalThought said:
It's a bit premature to make that call. Sen. Joe Manchin has proven to be quite a roadblock, but there is no saying how far Republican support for repeal extends if it is a stand alone issue.

Honestly, even if repeal is dead for the next 2 years, we can expect both presidential candidates in 2012 to favor repeal because there is such popular support for it, both within the military and in the public at large, and there is no indication that is going to change. Even the military leaders who are most staunchly opposed to repeal now are so because we are currently engaged in 2 wars, and so as we continue to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, we will probably see the last support for this policy diminish significantly.
Click to expand...

The point is that the majority in this country don't believe that this issue is serious enough to warrant a lot of concern. Only a small vocal minority are fighting for this issue and the question is why?
 
Conservative said:
DADT isn't going to be repealed. Why is this such an issue for you? Are you looking for the benefits the military has to offer? That would be the only reason for such passion.
Click to expand...

Or maybe some of us believe this is something more.

The rights of a people on 2 fronts.

Gays in the military may not serve openly and proudly and contribute to the defence of the nation openly and proudly like everybody else, but instead do have to lie about who they are. Do soldiers not ask each other about girls?

Gays aren't allowed to marry as well.

Why do these things happen? Simple. People don't like them, it has nothing to do with military cohesion at all. Militaries with openly gay soldiers don't have problems with cohesion.
 
Conservative said:
Where is the evidence that there is a shortage in any field and that shortage is due to gays dropping out? Looks to me like the recruiting hasn't been hurt.
Click to expand...

The fact that they offer huge enlistment and reenlistment bonuses is the evidence that they have shortages in some fields. And I have given you at least one field in particular that it affects. Deny all you want, but it is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom