• 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

I wonder how many of our troops are offended when they hear that some people think they are not mature enough to serve alongside gays.
 
Crossdressing is also different from being transgendered.
 
I wonder how many of our troops are offended when they hear that some people think they are not mature enough to serve alongside gays.

They might be offened, if someone was actually saying that. But...

How 'bout you ask the 67% of Marines and 58% of Army soldiers, serving in combat arms units about it?
 
They might be offened, if someone was actually saying that. But...

How 'bout you ask the 67% of Marines and 58% of Army soldiers, serving in combat arms units about it?

Or the 90 + % of those same people who have actually served with gays who think it would not be a problem.
 
You've got to be kidding me! You realize that homosexual people, whether male or female, aren't all violent rapists... right? I'm actually doubting you do. We have female soldiers in the military, what if they get raped by a male soldier? Whatcha gonna say then, huh?

Furthermore, they're already in the military, they just don't say they're homosexual. Even if we granted your premise that most homosexuals are violent rapists, wouldn't it be better to know who is and who isn't a homosexual? Aren't you at greater risk when it could be anyone in your squad? One second you're dropping the soap, the next your best mate is up in your junk.

Ahh, there's nothing more entertaining than observing the beliefs of people like you :)

100% of gays, aren't violent rapists? A gay man, or woman has never been raped by another gay man, or woman? Ever???? In the history of mankind, it's never happened?
 
Or the 90 + % of those same people who have actually served with gays who think it would not be a problem.

This is why I don't put stock in polls. You can always fiddle with the numbers to prove your point. BTW, "90+%", is a new number. Where did that come from?
 
This is why I don't put stock in polls. You can always fiddle with the numbers to prove your point. BTW, "90+%", is a new number. Where did that come from?

Yes, the DoD investigation. Combat troops where against it, but if you narrow it to just those who have served with gays, the number changes dramatically.
 
Because people are free to run their mouths.

Not in the military, they're not. The U.S. armed forces has never had the same level of free speech that the civilian world does.
 
Yes, the DoD investigation. Combat troops where against it, but if you narrow it to just those who have served with gays, the number changes dramatically.

What percentage of the ranks does that group make up?

Now you're playing some serious numbers games.
 
Depends kinda. We would never have considered either a PDA when I was in the navy, unless in uniform, and even then not really. The Marines(I think) have actual regulations on PDAs, but the rest of the service does not, so it probably varies from branch, base and command.

Each command usually has local policies concerning PDA and it does vary, however the one constant, is that PDA is strictly forbidden, while in uniform, whether on post, or off, whether on duty, or off.
 
LGBT people aren't the bad guys at all. They made the mistake of gambling on Obama caring about their issues. They were unwise.

It's Obama's fault it didn't pass in the Senate?
 
It's Obama's fault it didn't pass in the Senate?

Seriously; I think it is Obama's fault. I believe that he could have issued an executive order, or two and pulled the teeth out of DADT. DADT would have still been in place, but it would have been practically inert.

But, that's not what the Lefties want to go down. They want a show.
 
Seriously; I think it is Obama's fault. I believe that he could have issued an executive order, or two and pulled the teeth out of DADT. DADT would have still been in place, but it would have been practically inert.

But, that's not what the Lefties want to go down. They want a show.

Yep... whatever you say dogg.

I think he wants a law passed, so it's passed once and for all... an executive order can be rescinded.
 
Seriously; I think it is Obama's fault. I believe that he could have issued an executive order, or two and pulled the teeth out of DADT. DADT would have still been in place, but it would have been practically inert.

But, that's not what the Lefties want to go down. They want a show.

Uhh, no, they want it done in a way that can't be instantly reversed the moment a Republican sits in the oval office.
Also, DADT has already been neutered pretty well. It is now a secretary-level decision to discharge someone under DADT, and those guys usually have better things to do.
 
I have never once "froliced", "flaunted", "girl talked", or "decored".

You have a rather stereotypical view of gay people.

my point is that if you allow all gays to openly talk and declare their gayness, that will include my "stereotypical".
and they will push the envelope as sure as we are having this conversation.

and my further point, again is that gays ARE allowed in the military now, as long as they conduct themselves in a way that doesnt include this sterotypical I describe.

The very meaning of military, as anyone who has been thru the rigors of preparing for combat knows, does not allow this mindset.
Its a macho environment, this is not a glee club.

conduct yourself accordingly or you will be harassed.
I dont care if you repeal till the cows come home, that really changes nothing.
And will only add additional resentment if straight soldiers are somehow called aside and punished for telling an openly gay soldier to act like a soldier.

quit being ridiculous.

You are gay and want to serve in the military, come on in, but realize this is no place for you to soapbox your PC insecurities.

deal with it
 
Last edited:
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:
It's not the finger we're concerned about. Sorry, sorry, couldn't resist.
 
What percentage of the ranks does that group make up?

Now you're playing some serious numbers games.

~30 % IIRC. Will look later after hockey game.
 
Each command usually has local policies concerning PDA and it does vary, however the one constant, is that PDA is strictly forbidden, while in uniform, whether on post, or off, whether on duty, or off.

Flase. I took my comment on only one branch having actual rules against PDA's from to 2010 DoD report.
 
Seriously; I think it is Obama's fault. I believe that he could have issued an executive order, or two and pulled the teeth out of DADT. DADT would have still been in place, but it would have been practically inert.

But, that's not what the Lefties want to go down. They want a show.

If he would have used an executive order, you would have bitched he broke his promise on not doing it with an EO.
 
my point is that if you allow all gays to openly talk and declare their gayness, that will include my "stereotypical".
and they will push the envelope as sure as we are having this conversation.

and my further point, again is that gays ARE allowed in the military now, as long as they conduct themselves in a way that doesnt include this sterotypical I describe.

The very meaning of military, as anyone who has been thru the rigors of preparing for combat knows, does not allow this mindset.
Its a macho environment, this is not a glee club.

conduct yourself accordingly or you will be harassed.
I dont care if you repeal till the cows come home, that really changes nothing.
And will only add additional resentment if straight soldiers are somehow called aside and punished for telling an openly gay soldier to act like a soldier.

quit being ridiculous.

You are gay and want to serve in the military, come on in, but realize this is no place for you to soapbox your PC insecurities.

deal with it

You are really reaching. First, you are right, there is something of a macho mindset in the military which is not present in the rest of society. Those who don't have such a mindset don't do well in the military usually. This will not change, and in fact, most gays who enlist will fit into this macho mindset. Those who don't, much like straits who don't, won't generally succeed in their military career. Since not being of the personality type to handle military life well is something that is not based on orientation, it's a null factor in the discussion.

This is not political correctness, nor are those who can handle being around gays the ones with "insecurities".
 
Why should we ban LGBT soldiers from serving openly because it may offend someone, why are you singling out LGBT soldiers?
It has to do with living in close proximity to those of the same sex who may find you sexually desirable. That would be something I wouldn't want to even know about.
 
It has to do with living in close proximity to those of the same sex who may find you sexually desirable. That would be something I wouldn't want to even know about.

In the words of a gay guy I knew once "I am not interested in strait guys, they would never be able to satisfy me".
 
Actaully, the translation is, "act like a soldier and leave your private life private".

If that was the policy for heterosexuals as well, you would have a point.
 
In the words of a gay guy I knew once "I am not interested in strait guys, they would never be able to satisfy me".
You can't say every gay soldier would see it that way, though. Gay or not, guys are, well, guys.
 
Back
Top Bottom