• 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

You're making the assumption that gay soldiers aren't going to discriminate against straight soldiers.

If there is discrimination, it should be reported and addressed. You're making the assumption that it won't.

How are you going to feel, when soldiers refuse to billet with soldiers who are of a different sexual orientation?

I'll feel like Leavenworth will need to expand since they are refusing an order.
 
What exactly does that have to do with the gayness of a particular officer? A bad and unworthy officer discriminates. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Of course, you think that being gay makes you bad and unworthy...

And, now we have homophobe accusation #2.
 
You're making the assumption that gay soldiers aren't going to discriminate against straight soldiers.

How are you going to feel, when soldiers refuse to billet with soldiers who are of a different sexual orientation?


I think the UCMJ can take of that considering sex is only allowed on base between people that are married.
 
So, if you don't mind me asking, what about Gays serving openly would have made you decide not to serve?

I would not like to be in the Navy serving aboard ships at sea for periods of 90 days living in close quarters, showering, etc with men that were sexually attracted to me.........
 
I would not like to be in the Navy serving aboard ships at sea for periods of 90 days living in close quarters, showering, etc with men that were sexually attracted to me.........

:rofl:rofl
 
I will just muffle my response....I won't let you bait me............Have a nice evening............

It wasn't bait. I was just trying to get you to understand why people call you that. It's comments like that. It's absurd. Of all the dangers our seamen face, sharing the same air with homosexuals isn't even on the radar. The only thing that would propell it to the top of the list is bigotry.
 
I would not like to be in the Navy serving aboard ships at sea for periods of 90 days living in close quarters, showering, etc with men that were sexually attracted to me.........

No, Navy, you have served with men that you were sexually attractive to. You just don't want to know which ones. Gay/bisexual people have served as long as there has been a military. They just didn't wink at you when you were showering.
 
Good luck with that argument in any court.

Its a fact, whether you like it or not about 90% of this country are God Fearing Christians (myself included) and would not want to serve with openly gay men for the reasons I have stated over and over.......
 
If there is discrimination, it should be reported and addressed.

If a modified version of DADT is left in place, I believe that it will greatly reduce the accusations of discrimination.

You're making the assumption that it won't.

Oh, beleive me, I think it will be reported. Commanders will be overwhelmed with accusations of sexual harassment and discrimination.

"I didn't get promoted, because I'm gay"

"I didn't get promoted, because I'm straight"

"That gay soldier made a pass at me"

"That straight soldier made a pass at me"

I can just hear it!


I'll feel like Leavenworth will need to expand since they are refusing an order.

Well, that's the wrong answer, since you would be violating the rights of those soldiers. Wanna try again?
 
I think the UCMJ can take of that considering sex is only allowed on base between people that are married.

Yes, but sex, in the billets is very much prohibited.
 
Its a fact, whether you like it or not about 90% of this country are God Fearing Christians (myself included) and would not want to serve with openly gay men for the reasons I have stated over and over.......

God Fearing is sooooo Old Testament.

Ironic that Israel doesn't have a problem with homosexuals serving in the Israeli Defense Force.
 
Its a fact, whether you like it or not about 90% of this country are God Fearing Christians (myself included) and would not want to serve with openly gay men for the reasons I have stated over and over.......


Have you looked at the latest polls of what young people have to say about it? Hello young people are the recruits!
 
And, now we have homophobe accusation #2.

That is all they have my friend.............the homophobe abd bigot card..........how stale and obnoxious it is..........
 
Well, that's the wrong answer, since you would be violating the rights of those soldiers. Wanna try again?

Since when did a soldier have the right to refuse a legal order? :lol:
 
That is all they have my friend.............the homophobe abd bigot card..........how stale and obnoxious it is..........

I think it comes from a basic ignorance of how the system actually works.

Did you see where IT said that soldiers who refuse to billet with other soldiers should go to Leavenworth? How would he look--as an officer--sending a female soldier to Leavenworth, because she refused to share a latrine with male soldiers?
 
It wasn't bait. I was just trying to get you to understand why people call you that. It's comments like that. It's absurd. Of all the dangers our seamen face, sharing the same air with homosexuals isn't even on the radar. The only thing that would propell it to the top of the list is bigotry.

Or, because of a severe lack of knowledge, it's the only argument ya'll really have? As NP has pointed out.

How many times have I said that I think the ban should be lifted and yet, two posters, almost back-to-back call me a homophobe.
 
I think it comes from a basic ignorance of how the system actually works.

Did you see where IT said that soldiers who refuse to billet with other soldiers should go to Leavenworth? How would he look--as an officer--sending a female soldier to Leavenworth, because she refused to share a latrine with male soldiers?

Did you see where I said a legal order? Your example is not a legal order.
 
Last edited:
Have you looked at the latest polls of what young people have to say about it? Hello young people are the recruits!

I don't believe in polls, it all depends on the questions asked. I talk to sailors every day stationed on the USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) and to a man they tell me they were never asked do you believe DADT should be repealed but what is the best way to repeal it.
 
Did you see where I said a legal order? Your example is not a legal order.

Actually, I didn't see where you said, "legal order".

I'll feel like Leavenworth will need to expand since they are refusing an order.


Ordering a soldier to share billets, with personel that he/she doesn't want to share billets with would be an unlawful order. Your contention, is that you can order a soldiers to share billets with whomever you think they should be sharing billets with. It's all covered in AR 600-20. Check it out.
 
Bottom line if its not broke don't fix it...............

If it were up to me I would go back to the old rocks and shoals and you would have to sign a statement upon entering military service that you are not gay..........Chew on that one.................
 
Back
Top Bottom