• 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

How the hell did this grow 200+ pages since I last looked at it about 5-6 hours ago.

I refuse to read that many posts.

So what has been going on?

I demand a recap!

:mrgreen:

I'm right and everyone else is wrong. That purdy much sums it up.
 
Simply existing, no. But even the most innocent action, or comment can be perceived as sexual harassment, in the miltiary. In the military, you can be charged with sexual harassment for looking at someone the wrong way; literally. You have to understand that we're dealing with a system where pointing your finger isn't allowed, because it can be taken as a threat of violence.

So, if gays and straights are forced to share billets, expect a rise in sexual harassment cases.

Really? Now you are suggesting that our soldiers get their feelings hurt when someone gay points a finger at them?

Forget DADT. We might as well surrender to the Salvation Army. :lol:
 
Really? Now you are suggesting that our soldiers get their feelings hurt when someone gay points a finger at them?

Forget DADT. We might as well surrender to the Salvation Army. :lol:

No, just telling you how the system works.
 
No, just telling you how the system works.

The system gets it's feelings hurt when gays point their fingers at it?
 
It's apparantly some sort of gay sex act. I haven't exactly lead a prudish existance, but even I hadn't heard of it until he mentioned it on this forum.

Funny...because I've heard more about straight people engaging in daisy chains than I ever have heard about gay people. I thought it kinda died out in the 60's-70's
 
Except, it would damn hard to inact a DADT policy with a black soldier. Obviously that's a dumbassed example. However, DADT could be left in place--with modifications. Are you aware of the race riots that the military experienced for the 20 +/- years after desegregation?

If we could avoid that kind of blowback, shouldn't we do it? I would like to avoid it. Wouldn't you?

It was harder for blacks to hide, but that doesn't change the dynamics much. Soldiers still had to interact with someone many did not want to. And it being harder, potentially even dangerous, was not reason to not allow them to serve with those they served with. And the army adjusted despite any trouble or problems. And it was right regardless of the cost. The same is true here.

That said, I suspect we would have less trouble than you might think. The objection to homosexuals is much less than the objection to segregation was back then.
 
"Believe" is the key word. You can "believe" pretty much anything, but here is a hint for you: most gays did not, nor do they, take part in wild orgies. It's something that you may dream about, but it is not reality. Most gays are surprisingly straitlaced.

With all due respect you live in a fantasy world Redress...Gays are the most promiscuous people in t he world....Not all but most have multiple sex partners......Go to google and type in gay bath houses in San Francisco in the eighties and you will find the info.......
 
With all due respect you live in a fantasy world Redress...Gays are the most promiscuous people in t he world....Not all but most have multiple sex partners......Go to google and type in gay bath houses in San Francisco in the eighties and you will find the info.......

Well over half regular marriages end in divorce, children are having sex at like 14 now. When it comes to promiscuity, homosexuals do not have the monopoly. In fact, in general humans sexual activities have changed quite a lot; hetero and homosexual alike. Most people have multiple sex partners. I've not known one person yet who has married the first person they slept with. For most of us, that would be a most unfortunate decision. I'd say the promiscuity of gay and straight folk are probably about equal, maybe not exactly equal but close.
 
With all due respect you live in a fantasy world Redress...Gays are the most promiscuous people in t he world....Not all but most have multiple sex partners......Go to google and type in gay bath houses in San Francisco in the eighties and you will find the info.......

You can document this, or is it just another wild claim with no basis in reality?
 
There is no proof that homosexuals are the most promiscuous people in the world. Also, how would this justify denying them their rights (and their partner's rights) in the military?
 
With all due respect you live in a fantasy world Redress...Gays are the most promiscuous people in t he world....Not all but most have multiple sex partners......Go to google and type in gay bath houses in San Francisco in the eighties and you will find the info.......

You are one to lecture others on promiscuity navy.
 
You can document this, or is it just another wild claim with no basis in reality?

IMO, Navy is exactly right, liberals live in a fantasy world where they are never wrong, there are no consequences for failure, and everyone is equal in all aspects including outcome. If you and others are wrong regarding your assessment then what are the consequences to the military? This law has been on the books for 17 years so tell us the consequences of that law in regards to national security. We know the results with the law but not without it. There are proponents on each side so tell me what is the worst case scenerio if the law is repealed and then ask yourself if it is worth it?
 
It was harder for blacks to hide, but that doesn't change the dynamics much. Soldiers still had to interact with someone many did not want to. And it being harder, potentially even dangerous, was not reason to not allow them to serve with those they served with. And the army adjusted despite any trouble or problems. And it was right regardless of the cost. The same is true here.

That said, I suspect we would have less trouble than you might think. The objection to homosexuals is much less than the objection to segregation was back then.

You're absolutely right. But, here--in my opinion--we have a way to make this a safer transition. Why not give it a shot, vice repeating history? I think our military and it's members are worth the effort. Don't you?
 
IMO, Navy is exactly right, liberals live in a fantasy world where they are never wrong, there are no consequences for failure, and everyone is equal in all aspects including outcome. If you and others are wrong regarding your assessment then what are the consequences to the military? This law has been on the books for 17 years so tell us the consequences of that law in regards to national security. We know the results with the law but not without it. There are proponents on each side so tell me what is the worst case scenerio if the law is repealed and then ask yourself if it is worth it?

First of all. Your assumption of liberals is based in fantasy itself.
Let's look at what the law does currently. Currently the consequences are the homosexuals can never speak of their sexuality (which isn't all that bad right) However, this entails banning their family from military functions. Their partners receive no benefits or support like a heterosexual military family would. Their partner and the soldier must keep quiet about their relationship. Straight soldiers can sometimes move their families with them onto bases, a homosexual family couldn't do this. Currently the consequence of the law is that an injustice is being approved of. It is disrespecting our soldiers and denies them rights and privileges.
 
You're absolutely right. But, here--in my opinion--we have a way to make this a safer transition. Why not give it a shot, vice repeating history? I think our military and it's members are worth the effort. Don't you?

I also think they are worth fairness. The military includes homosexuals who serve. I actually believe it will be far less tramatic than you think.
 
With all due respect you live in a fantasy world Redress...Gays are the most promiscuous people in t he world....Not all but most have multiple sex partners......Go to google and type in gay bath houses in San Francisco in the eighties and you will find the info.......

Most of the people in the Navy have had many sexual partners, NP. I'd say that was also true for the other branches as well.
 
Most of the people in the Navy have had many sexual partners, NP. I'd say that was also true for the other branches as well.




The Good Reverend lost count of all the fillies he had in his stable during that time.... :pimpdaddy:
 
Most of the people in the Navy have had many sexual partners, NP. I'd say that was also true for the other branches as well.

Considering that Navy Pride is on record here on this site bragging about committing adultry with a married woman while her husband was off serving our country, it is kind of ironic listening to him lecture others about being promiscuous.
 
Considering that Navy Pride is on record here on this site bragging about committing adultry with a married woman while her husband was off serving our country, it is kind of ironic listening to him lecture others about being promiscuous.




NP cheated on his wife? :confused:
 
IMO, Navy is exactly right, liberals live in a fantasy world where they are never wrong, there are no consequences for failure, and everyone is equal in all aspects including outcome. If you and others are wrong regarding your assessment then what are the consequences to the military? This law has been on the books for 17 years so tell us the consequences of that law in regards to national security. We know the results with the law but not without it. There are proponents on each side so tell me what is the worst case scenerio if the law is repealed and then ask yourself if it is worth it?

What the **** does that mindless rant have to do with what I said or Navy said? If Navy is right, can you document that gays are the most promiscuous people in the world?
 
You're absolutely right. But, here--in my opinion--we have a way to make this a safer transition. Why not give it a shot, vice repeating history? I think our military and it's members are worth the effort. Don't you?

Your suggestion is not practical. It would involve complete changes in the way the military does business, including a change to traditions such as military birthday balls and predeployment functions, in which unit personnel are encouraged and even expected to bring significant others. It would also mean a restriction on one of the most important things to servicemembers' morale, support by family and friends for both parts of their lives, private and professional. A restriction on not being able to talk about relationships would most likely lead to more people in trouble. Heck, such a restriction could have led to my husband actually flying home (going UA) to deal with a bad personal problem at home. Because of the support of his Marine buddies, he was convinced of what a bad idea it really was. You cannot force people to lock their feelings away, this will lead to a lot bigger issues than a few people being uncomfortable.
 
Back
Top Bottom