• 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!

Marine officer: Gays, straights shouldn't share housing

I am trying to give you a hypothetical when I say men and women should bunk together......I know that it will not happen..........The point I am trying to make is the attraction between men and women is the same as the one between Lesbians and other women and gays and other men............

No, that's the problem. This has been pointed out to you by at least one, if not several other people in this thread. Gay men are attracted to men, but straight men are not attracted to those gay men. Gay women are attracted to women, but straight women are not attracted to those gay women. Few chances of an actual couple forming or an excessive amount of distraction of most of the people who are attracted to the people they are bunking with actually occurring, since most service members are actually heterosexual. However, when you are talking about men and women bunking together, since the vast majority of service members are heterosexual, then you now have a huge probability of couples forming, distractions occurring, and sexual harassment issues. The difference is largely in the probability of something happening when you compare the groups.

Probability of something occurring if only one or two persons are attracted to the personnel that they live with, knowing that those others are almost certainly not attracted to them in return, extremely low.

Probability of something occurring if pretty much all of the personnel that are attracted to each other in one way or another are all living together, and everyone knows that the attraction could easily be mutual, pretty frickin high.

Most people are not interested in trying to start a relationship with someone who is not attracted to the gender they are. And anyone who tries to force someone into a relationship that they don't want to be in, no matter if they have the same sexuality or not, can easily be punished through other rules of the UCMJ, harassment and rape come to mind.
 
So should we have separate locker rooms and bathrooms and dorms and all that stuff for gays in all other segments of society? At the gym, and in college? After all, there are going to be gays in those places too, staring at the rest of us.
 
So should we have separate locker rooms and bathrooms and dorms and all that stuff for gays in all other segments of society? At the gym, and in college? After all, there are going to be gays in those places too, staring at the rest of us.

Separate but equal. It has worked many times before.
 
I am not 100 % sure if it is true these days any more, but it used to be. The reality is that the stat probably came from educated people being more likely to come out of the closet.

We can start throwing stats around if we need to, but you are correct: homosexuals have historically enjoyed higher education levels and higher average incomes than their straight counterparts. This has been explained in numerous studies as homosexuals viewing education and income as gateways to acceptance. It has also been recently that they view service to their country the same way, which is why I have changed to favor repealing DADT.

You are 100% correct here.
 
Wow.

You don't even understand what our military fights for.

And you're lucky if you don't get dinged by the mods for this one.

Oh I got dinged. ;)

And how is it exactly that I do not know what it is I, myself, fought for? As a U.S. Marine, I'm pretty sure the most qualified person to make an opinion would be myself and any other who has served in the military. I was in Iraq at age 19.
 
Oh I got dinged. ;)

And how is it exactly that I do not know what it is I, myself, fought for? .

So what did you fight for? And please try to specific and avoid generalizations.
 
So what did you fight for? And please try to specific and avoid generalizations.

"I (insert my name here) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Simple enough of an answer for you?
 
"I (insert my name here) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Simple enough of an answer for you?

Grossly oversimplified, yes. Now answer his question.
 
"I (insert my name here) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Simple enough of an answer for you?

That is fairly broad actually. Now can you speak for yourself instead of a pre written oath?
 
And as I said, it does affect me because it is my money and my security. If you wish to pay me back the portion of my taxes that went to the defense budget, then I would be more than happy to send you my address and you can send me the check, then I won't have a basis by which to complain.

I am talking personally, if you were in the military or if you were joining and DADT affected you that way......Everyone pays taxes so that is a red herring........
 
That is fairly broad actually. Now can you speak for yourself instead of a pre written oath?

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. Saddam Hussein was one bad dude, that's for sure. I've seen his destruction first hand, and I know that what we did in Iraq helped the average Iraqi citizen gain freedom they once didn't have. Unless you are against freedom, it's difficult to see Saddam in a positive light.
 
I am talking personally, if you were in the military or if you were joining and DADT affected you that way......Everyone pays taxes so that is a red herring........

No it's not. We pay taxes to the federal government that goes into a defense budget to pay for a professional, well trained military. We do not pay taxes to provide a safe haven for bigots and homophobes to flee to when they don't want to accept that the world is moving forward.

DADT affects all of America.
 
I am talking personally, if you were in the military or if you were joining and DADT affected you that way......Everyone pays taxes so that is a red herring........

No, your little, "it doesn't affect you" argument is a red herring. The people this policy affects most are gays and lesbians who are serving in the military, not you.
 
No, your little, "it doesn't affect you" argument is a red herring. The people this policy affects most are gays and lesbians who are serving in the military, not you.

Exactly. If Navy wants to play that game, I can easily say that DADT doesn't affect washed up has-beens trying to cling to their glory days at sea by butting in to policy discussions that they've been retired from for years.

But then I would be just as dishonest and obtuse as Navy so I won't press that issue.
 
I am talking personally, if you were in the military or if you were joining and DADT affected you that way......Everyone pays taxes so that is a red herring........

You are always spouting off about things that you have no "personal" experience or say in....why are you different than those whom you criticize?
 
You are always spouting off about things that you have no "personal" experience or say in....why are you different than those whom you criticize?

Because he's 500 years old and knows better than everyone around him. Plus, if you qualify everything you say with "I have no problem with" just before you berate and chastise and bash exactly what you claimed to have no problem with, well that just excuses it all if your manners are born of pre-depression sensibilities.:roll:
 
I am talking personally, if you were in the military or if you were joining and DADT affected you that way......Everyone pays taxes so that is a red herring........

Personally, it affected me in that I saw a couple of good nukes put out of the Navy involuntarily for being gay, and at least one more, who signed the paperwork to get out. Now for the one who signed the paperwork, she would have required the military to accept her significant other as a spouse to stay in, but without DADT and the rules against gays, she would have at least stayed until the end of her contract. The loss of 3 nukes, even on a carrier, does affect how much watch others have to stand and reduces the overall effectiveness of the department, at least a little, especially when the 3 were some of the top scorers on our tests.

Also, I was good friends with two of them, and the two guys were both there helping me when I had my allergic reaction while we were out with a group of others from our Nuke school class in Seattle.

I have never seen any problems caused by the homosexuals serving with heterosexuals who know they are gay. So I feel I have very good reason to dislike this unfair policy against gays, beyond even the already good reasons to disapprove of the policy.
 
No it's not. We pay taxes to the federal government that goes into a defense budget to pay for a professional, well trained military. We do not pay taxes to provide a safe haven for bigots and homophobes to flee to when they don't want to accept that the world is moving forward.

DADT affects all of America.


As I have said many times the military has one reason for existing......that is to fight our wars and protect us....It is not there to see how it will react to social experimentation......If the men that are serving say keep DADT then they should be listened to....If liberals want to do social experimentation do it somewhere else.......Cohesion and morale are to important to ignore...You can destroy your military by ignoring it...........
 
As I have said many times the military has one reason for existing......that is to fight our wars and protect us....It is not there to see how it will react to social experimentation......If the men that are serving say keep DADT then they should be listened to....If liberals want to do social experimentation do it somewhere else.......Cohesion and morale are to important to ignore...You can destroy your military by ignoring it...........

The military isn't there to protect the homophobic sensibilities of people like you either. Military policy isn't dictated because people like you aren't professional enough to work alongside openly gay soldiers.

Furthermore, what the hell is a "social experiment"? It's one of those nonsense phrases that conservatives use when they are losing an argument against change. Oh we can't do that! It's a social experiment!
 
Personally, it affected me in that I saw a couple of good nukes put out of the Navy involuntarily for being gay, and at least one more, who signed the paperwork to get out. Now for the one who signed the paperwork, she would have required the military to accept her significant other as a spouse to stay in, but without DADT and the rules against gays, she would have at least stayed until the end of her contract. The loss of 3 nukes, even on a carrier, does affect how much watch others have to stand and reduces the overall effectiveness of the department, at least a little, especially when the 3 were some of the top scorers on our tests.

Also, I was good friends with two of them, and the two guys were both there helping me when I had my allergic reaction while we were out with a group of others from our Nuke school class in Seattle.

I have never seen any problems caused by the homosexuals serving with heterosexuals who know they are gay. So I feel I have very good reason to dislike this unfair policy against gays, beyond even the already good reasons to disapprove of the policy.

I to saw good people that were gay discharged....They new the rules and the law but they made unwanted sexual advances against their shipmates...You just can't ignore that no matter how good of a sailor the person is.....

I can honestly say I have never known anyone who was gay in the Navy unless they were caught making unwanted advances.....There were guys that were very feminine that you might think they were gay but they never made advances or broke the law.........The court-martials I saw were against guys you would never think were gay......There was a EEL gunners mate and a EEL corpsman who were caught.........the EEL was performing oral sex on the EEL.........They were both court marshaled and discharged.....The gunners mate claimed he was not gay and that he just liked what the E3 did for him........The point I am trying to make is stereotypes don't always work.....
 
The military isn't there to protect the homophobic sensibilities of people like you either. Military policy isn't dictated because people like you aren't professional enough to work alongside openly gay soldiers.

Furthermore, what the hell is a "social experiment"? It's one of those nonsense phrases that conservatives use when they are losing an argument against change. Oh we can't do that! It's a social experiment!

You sound like a ****ing broken record.......At least some of your friends makes a little sense and present some type of and argument.........

Everyone knows there is no problem working with someone gay.....I did it myself for 10 years and am on a golf team with a gay co worker who is gay.......We are not talking about working with someone gay...........Try and pay attention.......You just lose the little creditability you might have..........
 
You sound like a ****ing broken record.......At least some of your friends makes a little sense and present some type of and argument.........

Everyone knows there is no problem working with someone gay.....I did it myself for 10 years and am on a golf team with a gay co worker who is gay.......We are not talking about working with someone gay...........Try and pay attention.......You just lose the little creditability you might have..........

You are arguing about credibility when you put "......" between every sentence?

You just made the argument several times about people getting hit on by gays and you have argued that gays bunking with straights is the exact same as men bunking with women, despite the fact that attractions can only go one way with the former but it can go both ways with the latter.

Clearly, you are not comfortable working with gays. It is transparent to anyone reading this thread. I don't know what lies you tell yourself but you aren't going to lie to us when you make arguments over and over again which demonstrates your homophobia.
 
I to saw good people that were gay discharged....They new the rules and the law but they made unwanted sexual advances against their shipmates...You just can't ignore that no matter how good of a sailor the person is.....

I can honestly say I have never known anyone who was gay in the Navy unless they were caught making unwanted advances.....There were guys that were very feminine that you might think they were gay but they never made advances or broke the law.........The court-martials I saw were against guys you would never think were gay......There was a EEL gunners mate and a EEL corpsman who were caught.........the EEL was performing oral sex on the EEL.........They were both court marshaled and discharged.....The gunners mate claimed he was not gay and that he just liked what the E3 did for him........The point I am trying to make is stereotypes don't always work.....

Maybe you should stop stereotyping gays then, right?

You might also think about the fact that what it was like when you were in, is not how it is now. Things have changed, NP. Now days, a lot more of the sailors/soldiers/Marines are a lot more accepting of homosexuality than they were in your day. From my experience in the Navy, it is a lot more likely that a heterosexual sailor would just say no to a homosexual sailor who mistakenly hit on him/her, than to turn them in for being gay. Now, I never actually saw or even heard of a homosexual sailor even asking a heterosexual sailor for a date, although my husband said he was hit on while on his boat, and just set the guys that did it straight by telling them he was straight. No fuss, no muss. All the guys I saw or heard about who were "hitting" on other guys, were straight guys doing it just to mess with the guys they knew were uncomfortable with homosexuals.

And, I'm sorry but the only time I've even heard about some guy in the Navy forcing another guy into sex was the story told to us by the SAVI training lady about the heterosexual guys who couldn't stand their LPO, so they drugged him and raped him. Like most rapes it was about the power and/or humiliation, not the actual sex or sexuality of the rapists or the victim. You can cling to your stories from your experience back when in the Navy if you wish, to use as proof that homosexuals will somehow be more likely to do something with a shipmate, but I know that it wasn't my experience and things have changed a lot since you were in.
 
I can honestly say I have never known anyone who was gay in the Navy unless they were caught making unwanted advances.....

If I wanted to get out of the Navy I would tell you that I'm gay even though I'm straight. Because I know you would be running off to the CO like a kindergarten tattle tale.
 
Back
Top Bottom