• 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!

Why is Donald Trump homophobic?

CLAX1911 said:
He didn't he can't the president doesn't set military policy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point, if any, you are trying to argue. I said transgender Americans should be allowed to serve in the armed forces. You said they might have a mental disorder. I said the joint chiefs of staff approved their service. Then you posted what I quoted here.

So this is a bigoted debate. There is no compelling reason to prevent transgender Americans from joining the military unless they have flat feet.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
I'm not sure what point, if any, you are trying to argue.
Click to expand...
my point is that there is a reason why people think they shouldn't now this reason may be legitimate or not I don't know. I know a lot of people want to say it's based on hatred but maybe not.

I said transgender Americans should be allowed to serve in the armed forces. You said they might have a mental disorder.
Click to expand...
my argument to that is the military should decide who serves.

If you don't think the presence of gender dysphoria or transgender tendencies should automatically disqualify someone from service I would actually agree with that.

I said the joint chiefs of staff approved their service. Then you posted what I quoted here.
Click to expand...
Yes.

So this is a bigoted debate.
Click to expand...
it's never a good idea to try and decide motive especially if you don't know what the other person is thinking.

My position is not at all based on any personal views on transgender people it's based on facts about them.

There is no compelling reason to prevent transgender Americans from joining the military unless they have flat feet.
Click to expand...
well yes there is. People who are transgender have an extremely high propensity for depression. Just like people with flat feet have an extremely high propensity for stress fractures and their metatarsals and stress fractures in their Shin bones.

These are real quantifiable reasons. Are there people with flat feet that can run miles and miles and not get stress fractures in their feet and shins Wilshire other people with flat feet that can run for miles and miles and get stress fractures in their feet and shins and it not cause severe problems will again sure. But the only way to know that is to invest money in them training them and putting them through boot camp and seeing if they develop these things.

The same thing can be said for transgenders and issues with depression.

If you put a person with depression in a high-stress environment it is unpredictable how they will react.

Another example I have a friend who tried to join the Army he went into basic training he suffered from depression they removed him from service and said he could not serve he wouldn't even transgender. His propensity for depression was not something he could help.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I was forbidden from joining for something I can't help. The military has a reason for it. Though they haven't banned trans servicemen, not sure they will.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has always been an inherent ban on trans service members, even if they paid for all their surgeries prior to enlisting. Doctors check on enlistment to ensure equipment is natural.

Additionally, not all transgender require surgery (some do not require physical transition).
 
Trump isn't homophobic. I highly doubt he is even transphobic. He is pandering to the far right base. For what reason, who knows. My best guess is to get this tax bill through. It does benefit him and many like him, related to him far more than it does the middle class. He would have to be delusional to think his actions would gain him a better chance of winning reelection
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, it has always been an inherent ban on trans service members, even if they paid for all their surgeries prior to enlisting. Doctors check on enlistment to ensure equipment is natural.

Additionally, not all transgender require surgery (some do not require physical transition).
Click to expand...

Well up until very recently it was considered a mental disorder. And such a thing would keep anybody out.

As far as trans people that don't do anything to transition they shouldn't just be allowed to be considered the opposite sex. Such a thing would create a problem. If you simply must express your opposite sex inner person the military may not be the place for you to do that.
 
Don't know if he is homophobic....but he is definitely moronic.
 
What does homophobic really mean?
 
roguenuke said:
Trump isn't homophobic. I highly doubt he is even transphobic. He is pandering to the far right base. For what reason, who knows. My best guess is to get this tax bill through. It does benefit him and many like him, related to him far more than it does the middle class. He would have to be delusional to think his actions would gain him a better chance of winning reelection
Click to expand...

I think President Trump is being practical minded and is trying to reverse the liberal social construct, that the majority has to accommodate any minority than votes democrat. It does not make sense for an entire army to accommodate a small group, that can cause discontent among a larger group of the rank and file.

As an analogy, it is sort of like if one child is allergic to peanut butter, everyone in the school can no longer eat peanut butter. Or, if one atheist does not like the nativity scene, everyone else has to cave in, and not have their normal Christmas tradition. This thinking says that one liberal complaint is worth more than the need and feelings of everyone else. Or if you place one woman in a job site all the men need to modify behavior.

This is not how the military chain of command works. The chain of command is traditionally done by rank, which is a function of service, experience and education. The military chain of command is not done in the image of a mother tending to the baby who cries the most. While even the General have to be careful about giving orders in a certain way. In that respect, it panders to the Republican image of natural selection versus the Democrat image of artificial selection in an upside down world.

Say you allowed transgenders or serve and some of the rank and file decide to haze them. The system would need to hold special sensitivity classes for everyone, that have nothing to do with war and the needs of an army. An military is about war, which includes fighting and dying. Hazing is part of the training in an attempt to toughen the soldiers up, in preparation for the day they may confront an enemy who will show no mercy.

It should be done as don't say and don't ask, so there is no disruption and no need to accommodate out of the chain of command.
 
Last edited:
He is not homophobic, but still an idiot.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well yes it does mean that. But what he's saying is people will call anybody homophobic for reasons other than than being homophobic.
Click to expand...

How do either of you support a statement like that? As far as I know, the homophobic label is always (I'll say almost always to be safe) used in a context related to homosexuality. Religious people like to argue that they are not homophobic just because they are opposed to same sex marriage, but that is the definition of homophobia. To say, "I have gay friends and neighbors," makes a person no less homophobic than a racist person who has black friends and coworkers.

Anyway, my point is that he said the word means nothing nowadays. I assure you both that it means exactly what I said it means even if the occasional idiot uses words improperly.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
How do either of you support a statement like that? As far as I know, the homophobic label is always (I'll say almost always to be safe) used in a context related to homosexuality. Religious people like to argue that they are not homophobic just because they are opposed to same sex marriage, but that is the definition of homophobia. To say, "I have gay friends and neighbors," makes a person no less homophobic than a racist person who has black friends and coworkers.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to tell you this having black friends while not being black yourself absolutely means you are not racist. I would say it means you're probably not homophobic if you have gay friends.

Is there a real people out there that are prejudiced against homosexuals so the word does still apply but it doesn't apply as much as it's used.

Anyway, my point is that he said the word means nothing nowadays.
Click to expand...
and I disagreed with him.

I assure you both that it means exactly what I said it means even if the occasional idiot uses words improperly.
Click to expand...
And believe it or not I agreed with you
 
Absentglare said:
Homophobic still means what it always meant.
Click to expand...

You really need to learn how to read.

The first sentence of the post you responded to is this, "Well yes it does mean that."

On what planet does that mean that I disagree with somebody about what a word means?
 
CLAX1911 said:
You really need to learn how to read.

The first sentence of the post you responded to is this, "Well yes it does mean that."

On what planet does that mean that I disagree with somebody about what a word means?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood my response if you think i was disagreeing with you on that.

If a boy cries wolf, that boy loses credibility. The definition of "wolf" doesn't change. You were re-interpreting what was said, that was my point.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I'm sorry to tell you this having black friends while not being black yourself absolutely means you are not racist. I would say it means you're probably not homophobic if you have gay friends.

Is there a real people out there that are prejudiced against homosexuals so the word does still apply but it doesn't apply as much as it's used.

and I disagreed with him.


And believe it or not I agreed with you
Click to expand...

And the fact that I can download kiddie porn on your computer means you're a child molester. That's just a ridiculous thing to say.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
And the fact that I can download kiddie porn on your computer means you're a child molester. That's just a ridiculous thing to say.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you what you said it's absolutely a ridiculous thing to say.

I have no idea what on Earth you were talking about. Or how this disjointed cognitive dissonance is it all a response to the post you responded to.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I absolutely agree with you what you said it's absolutely a ridiculous thing to say.

I have no idea what on Earth you were talking about. Or how this disjointed cognitive dissonance is it all a response to the post you responded to.
Click to expand...

*sigh* You said, "I'm sorry to tell you this having black friends while not being black yourself absolutely means you are not racist. I would say it means you're probably not homophobic if you have gay friends."

I responded to that absurd statement by saying, "And the fact that I can download kiddie porn on your computer means you're a child molester."

Hopefully now you understand why it's relevant and related.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
*sigh* You said, "I'm sorry to tell you this having black friends while not being black yourself absolutely means you are not racist. I would say it means you're probably not homophobic if you have gay friends."

I responded to that absurd statement by saying, "And the fact that I can download kiddie porn on your computer means you're a child molester."
Click to expand...
what about that statement is absurd?

Do you think people that have friends people that get along with from all sorts of different races are racist because of that? Do you have the first clue what racist means?

Hopefully now you understand why it's relevant and related.
Click to expand...
I understand that your statement was profoundly stupid.

If you have friends of other races you are clearly not racist racist people would not have friends of other races.

To think that way is utterly mind-boggling nobody understands that nobody ever will because it makes absolutely no kind of sense.
 
CLAX1911 said:
what about that statement is absurd?

Do you think people that have friends people that get along with from all sorts of different races are racist because of that? Do you have the first clue what racist means?

I understand that your statement was profoundly stupid.

If you have friends of other races you are clearly not racist racist people would not have friends of other races.

To think that way is utterly mind-boggling nobody understands that nobody ever will because it makes absolutely no kind of sense.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is that people who have associations with any type of person cannot harbor discriminatory feelings against other people who share a characteristic. It's a mind-numbingly dumb thing to say. I work with people I don't like and with whom I disagree. That doesn't mean I dislike everyone who is like them. Likewise, I don't necessarily like everyone who is like someone else with whom I associate. Do you understand why your statement does not withstand logic?
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
What you're saying is that people who have associations with any type of person cannot harbor discriminatory feelings against other people who share a characteristic.
Click to expand...
not even close. When you put words into my mouth you are making a straw man fallacy.

It's a mind-numbingly dumb thing to say.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with this but I didn't say that statement you thinks dumb you did.

If you're calling your own statements dumb and I'm calling your statements dumb we are in agreement your statements are dumb.

I work with people I don't like and with whom I disagree. That doesn't mean I dislike everyone who is like them. Likewise, I don't necessarily like everyone who is like someone else with whom I associate. Do you understand why your statement does not withstand logic?
Click to expand...
Your parody of my statement does not withstand logic. That is your brain child not mine.

This last bit where you suffer diarrhea of the mouth explaining something I did in a sentence is the same statement.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
What you're saying is that people who have associations with any type of person cannot harbor discriminatory feelings against other people who share a characteristic. It's a mind-numbingly dumb thing to say. I work with people I don't like and with whom I disagree. That doesn't mean I dislike everyone who is like them. Likewise, I don't necessarily like everyone who is like someone else with whom I associate. Do you understand why your statement does not withstand logic?
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
not even close. When you put words into my mouth you are making a straw man fallacy.

I absolutely agree with this but I didn't say that statement you thinks dumb you did.

If you're calling your own statements dumb and I'm calling your statements dumb we are in agreement your statements are dumb.


Your parody of my statement does not withstand logic. That is your brain child not mine.

This last bit where you suffer diarrhea of the mouth explaining something I did in a sentence is the same statement.
Click to expand...

Honestly there's some merit to both of your sides here.

On the one hand, becoming familiar with a minority is a way to reduce prejudice toward that group.

On the other hand, having friends who are black doesn't isn't real proof of not harboring racial prejudice.

It's a bit like saying someone who is jogging or exercising at the gym can't be fat: they obviously still can be, but the behavior can work against the condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom