• 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!

DADT cloture passes

apdst said:
You're scared to answer the question, aren't you? You see the corner you've painted yourself into.

It has **** all to do with everything, since we're talking about the ability of the American serviceman to handle dealing with something he doesn't agree with and continueing to soldier on.
Click to expand...

It's not fear to not play along with your diversionary tactic and attempt to tie gays in with extremist organizations.
 
Jetboogieman said:
If you're an extremist, you're an extremist.

Why would you say its any more ok for a KKK member, of a member of Al Quaeda serving in the US military, as funny as that sounds.

I'm sorry what corner? You brought up this topic for no reason at all... Because you simply cannot prove that gays will have a profoundly negative effect.

You've been against repeal from the very beggining.

I understand your arguments, and quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Your own prejudice is yours.

**** the KKK.
Click to expand...

That almost sounds like you calling me a racist.
 
apdst said:
That almost sounds like you calling me a racist.
Click to expand...

It would to you wouldn't it.

Since you can't win on any other arguments, you simply cast Race Card.

I said **** the KKK randomly. Didn't mean it in any way.

Race_Card1.jpg
 
Ok apdst. You are an extremist because you dislike gays. Now that is fine for you to hate gays. But do not try to legislate what they can or can not do. If they want to serve let them serve. What is wrong with you? If a gay guy rescues you from a burning building. Would you not want to be rescued by him due to his sexuality? He is doing a job. And people should be allowed to be themselves without any fear of repercussion due to something they have no control over.
 
Redress said:
It's not fear to not play along with your diversionary tactic and attempt to tie gays in with extremist organizations.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to tie extremist orgs to gays. Obviously, they not the same thing.

I'm trying to illustrate a point about my faith in the professionalism of American service members.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Ok apdst. You are an extremist because you dislike gays. Now that is fine for you to hate gays. But do not try to legislate what they can or can not do. If they want to serve let them serve. What is wrong with you? If a gay guy rescues you from a burning building. Would you not want to be rescued by him due to his sexuality? He is doing a job. And people should be allowed to be themselves without any fear of repercussion due to something they have no control over.
Click to expand...

So, now I hate gays?

It sure don't take long for you Libbos to start calling people racists and homophobes.

And I don't have an argument?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's not do the race baiting/race card thing, and all the accusations of such. For such divisive issue this thread has gone pretty well, let's not ruin it. Thank you.
 
I don't agree that the ban on membership in extremist orgs should be lifted, just for the record.

However, my faith in our service membes has been questioned and this is far from the first time.

I'm throwing out a challenge to see how much faith the abolitionists have in our troops.

I guess no one wants to take the challenge and give an honest answer.
 
apdst said:
The DoD Has also made it clear that local commander have descesionary authority to make whatever billet arrangements they deem necessary for the good of the command. There's no way in hell that you can say with any amount of certainty, that there will be no seperate billets for gay and straight soldiers.

I'm starting to wonder why it's such a big to the abolitionists that gay and straight soldiers live in the same barracks. Is it that repressed resentment of all those homophobes out there?
Click to expand...

Yes decisions like that will belong to local commanders for th reasons you and the report said, however it will not be a matter of Army policy to separate these Soldiers and in almost all cases I expect commanders to not have the sufficient facilities, or desire, to make special arrangment for any gay or straight Soldiers. And I'm glad you see you dropped that double or triple increase in sexual harassment that you've predicted.
 
Bigotry comes not from the thoughts in your head. It comes from what you do. It's pretty bigoted to say "gays aren't capable of being good soldiers", or "being around gays will destroy army morale." Actually, the second one is less bigoted and more stupid. But when you say those things, you are a bigot. That's how it works.

To that second argument, it's pretty dumb to think that a well trained soldier can handle life and death situations, injury, being shot at, having to shoot other people... But the gay cooties are over the line. That position shows an incredible lack of respect for our fighting force. They're smarter than that, and generally more decent people than that. After all, they're giving up their time, energy, and potentially their lives to serve their country. Don't assume that these people are as petty and fearful as you are.
 
apdst said:
I don't agree that the ban on membership in extremist orgs should be lifted, just for the record.

However, my faith in our service membes has been questioned and this is far from the first time.

I'm throwing out a challenge to see how much faith the abolitionists have in our troops.

I guess no one wants to take the challenge and give an honest answer.
Click to expand...

I don't have faith in members of the KKK. Do you?
 
roguenuke said:
Gay guys have been showering with straight guys and other gay guys since high school or possibly earlier. And vice versa. Gay girls have been showering with straight girls and gay girls since high school or possibly earlier, and vice versa. Guys and girls, men and women do not normally shower together unvoluntarily, in the US. It is not because of the sexuality or presumed sexuality that these groups do not shower together. It is because of our modest and Puritan-influenced culture.

If there were nudists in the military, they could most likely shower with either sex and have no issues because most actual nudists do not view the naked human body as a sexual object normally. It is our issues (modesty) with what the majority of the US associates the human body with that makes us equate naked opposite sex body almost every time with sex. Men and women have been taught that it is not right for a man to see a woman that he is not intimate with naked, nor is it right for a woman to see a man that she is not intimate with naked. We have essentially been taught that the naked human body is a sexual object most of our lives, as heterosexuals.

But, for gay people, they wouldn't really be getting the same message. We don't teach our children that it is wrong for people of the same sex to see us naked, not for those of the same sex in a person's peer group. In fact, we normally force every school age child/teen to shower together with members of their same sex whenever they participate in group sports. Nothing sexual is seen about men or women showering together, normally. Since there is no assumed intimacy, then the message is that a man in front of a man naked is not sexual, normally, just like a woman in front of a woman naked is not sexual, normally.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea of the difference between a girls' shower and boys' shower in high school? It doesn't appear so.
 
American said:
Do you have any idea of the difference between a girls' shower and boys' shower in high school? It doesn't appear so.
Click to expand...

She does. However, it's readily apparent by your disagreement that you do not.
 
American said:
Please, go get a clue before you open up.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are unable to justify, explain, or debate the position you just offered up. Next time, you'll probably want to actually research a position and make a coherent argument rather than simply trolling.
 
Moderator's Warning:
You two knock it off.
 
American said:
Do you have any idea of the difference between a girls' shower and boys' shower in high school? It doesn't appear so.
Click to expand...

Then you need to explain exactly how I am wrong. Last time I looked, girls shower with girls and boys shower with boys in high school. It really doesn't matter what their sexuality is. It matters what their physical body says their gender is (although, granted, this is changing a little in some places with the more open acceptance of transgender people/kids, but that is a different issue and is not the normal).

So, tell me how exactly a boys' shower is different than a girls' shower, in terms of sexuality.
 
Paschendale said:
Bigotry comes not from the thoughts in your head. It comes from what you do. It's pretty bigoted to say "gays aren't capable of being good soldiers", or "being around gays will destroy army morale." Actually, the second one is less bigoted and more stupid. But when you say those things, you are a bigot. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

So, anytime I point out the realities of military life, especially when those comments are contrary to what you believe, that's a clear indication that I'm a bigot?

To that second argument, it's pretty dumb to think that a well trained soldier can handle life and death situations, injury, being shot at, having to shoot other people... But the gay cooties are over the line. That position shows an incredible lack of respect for our fighting force. They're smarter than that, and generally more decent people than that. After all, they're giving up their time, energy, and potentially their lives to serve their country. Don't assume that these people are as petty and fearful as you are.
Click to expand...

Equally dumb to think that female soldiers, who see death and destruction, can't handle sharing showers with male soldiers. Also equally dumb to think that soldiers who deal with life and death situations, can't handle serving with another soldier that is a member of an extremist orginization. You lack of confidence and disrespect for our soldiers and your attempt to use our armed forces to socially engineer our society is obvious.
 
apdst said:
We're talking the proffessionalism of the average American soldier and I want to know if you support lifting the ban on memberships in extremist orgs.
Click to expand...

A military member who is openly a member of a hate group (i.e. KKK, Black Panthers, Islamic terrorists group) is not being professional. They have claimed the beliefs/ideals of the group that they are a member of, most of which include a fight against tolerance of a specific group or many groups of people. So, either they are following those tenets that they have agreed to do, which means they are most likely discriminating or worse against someone in their unit or in the military during that time. Or they are lying about truly wanting to be a member of that group. Who joins a group like that who doesn't actually believe that they should act to get others to believe what they do and act on those beliefs? And, if someone is joining such a group while not actually believing in everything that they stand for, then why bother taking the risk of being kicked out of the military for doing so or not being allowed in in the first place?

Being openly gay doesn't require a person to espouse to any ideas or principles that are hateful or intolerant. All it requires is that someone be attracted to and want to date/be with members of their same sex. Homosexuals aren't required to become a member of any organization to be homosexual.
 
apdst said:
Equally dumb to think that female soldiers, who see death and destruction, can't handle sharing showers with male soldiers.
Click to expand...
I agree with this bit at least.

We should've implemented a Battlestar Galactica style military long ago.
 
Partisanhack said:
I agree with this bit at least.

We should've implemented a Battlestar Galactica style military long ago.
Click to expand...

It would very likely cause many issues that would very likely be detrimental to our military. On a small scale, in certain areas, it could very well work, but it is unlikely to work for the entire military. The chances of mutual attractions occurring between servicemembers is very high. The fact that men and women are not used to sharing such spaces in civilian life. It would be quite an event that is very likely to lead to a lot of problems if done throughout the military.
 
roguenuke said:
It would very likely cause many issues that would very likely be detrimental to our military. On a small scale, in certain areas, it could very well work, but it is unlikely to work for the entire military. The chances of mutual attractions occurring between servicemembers is very high. The fact that men and women are not used to sharing such spaces in civilian life. It would be quite an event that is very likely to lead to a lot of problems if done throughout the military.
Click to expand...
I think that the lesson we can take from any kind of intergration initiative in the military (blacks, women, etc) is that things are never as bad as people say they will be.

The less a soldier focuses on human aspects of themself (such as gender), the better off I think our military will be. It might be an awkward transition, but I think that the end of DADT will turn out to be a gold star on the track record of military professionalism, and that will give me even more confidence that the military is more capable of adaptation than people give it credit for.
 
Partisanhack said:
I agree with this bit at least.

We should've implemented a Battlestar Galactica style military long ago.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Starbuck is my secret girl crush!


...oh, would she not be there? Nevermind. :mrgreen:
 
Partisanhack said:
I think that the lesson we can take from any kind of intergration initiative in the military (blacks, women, etc) is that things are never as bad as people say they will be.

The less a soldier focuses on human aspects of themself (such as gender), the better off I think our military will be. It might be an awkward transition, but I think that the end of DADT will turn out to be a gold star on the track record of military professionalism, and that will give me even more confidence that the military is more capable of adaptation than people give it credit for.
Click to expand...

I agree, and know that I can at least share changing facilities with a group of 15+ male sailors with all of us able to be completely professional (although there were some who were uncomfortable with it, because they didn't know me and actually were afraid that i would make accusations of sexual harassment, eventhough I was the one who asked our Chief if it would be okay because I was tired of having to go to the gym to change while the guys could change in the shop).

I am just trying to be realistic. I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with coed military facilities, but do understand that everyone wasn't raised like me. My mother taught us all early on that the human body was just that, a body. In her view, there is nothing sexual about just a naked human body. A naked human body can be sexual, in certain situations, but usually, it isn't. Unfortunately, this is not how most people are taught. And this is very evident by our indecency laws. We consider naked people walking around to be not only illegal but grounds for the person to be put on a sex offender list, even if they were just naked. Look how many people have a fit about a woman breastfeeding in public. We are not ready for men and women in the military to share living spaces, overall, yet.
 
roguenuke said:
I agree, and know that I can at least share changing facilities with a group of 15+ male sailors with all of us able to be completely professional (although there were some who were uncomfortable with it, because they didn't know me and actually were afraid that i would make accusations of sexual harassment, eventhough I was the one who asked our Chief if it would be okay because I was tired of having to go to the gym to change while the guys could change in the shop).

I am just trying to be realistic. I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with coed military facilities, but do understand that everyone wasn't raised like me. My mother taught us all early on that the human body was just that, a body. In her view, there is nothing sexual about just a naked human body. A naked human body can be sexual, in certain situations, but usually, it isn't. Unfortunately, this is not how most people are taught. And this is very evident by our indecency laws. We consider naked people walking around to be not only illegal but grounds for the person to be put on a sex offender list, even if they were just naked. Look how many people have a fit about a woman breastfeeding in public. We are not ready for men and women in the military to share living spaces, overall, yet.
Click to expand...
I think you're right in a sense, but the great thing about the military is that if people aren't ready, then you can force them to be ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom