There are 5 choices, 8 votes for GaryCGibson's debate

Don't Ask, Don't Tell--Problems With Military Policy To Let Gays Mingle With Straights?

President Obama's revolutionary plan to let gays openly declare their behavior preference in the military will place some new burdens upon straight soldiers that may already defend against such social circumstances. Is this a Boston liberal elitist policy created by those that do not serve in the ranks? Does it liberate a minority as much as it represses a majority?
  • Such a none issue...
    I cannot believe this is such a divisive issue. America only needs to look at almost any other armed force in the world, and realise that homosexuality whether public or private does not decrease a units effectiveness.

    There is no military grounds for forcing a homosexual to remain quiet about his/her orientation. Some might argue that it would cause concern and animosity amongst heterosexual soldiers, but as the armed forces are now open to women- they in turn might be concerned about randy heterosexual men. Really not an issue, and all America needs to do is look elsewhere in the world for the answer...
    50%  Voted for by petethemeat, NoeL-, Xelgaroth, GinryuStargazer.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • To be deprived of an easy death
    In the US military to even admit one is a homosexual is considered a homosexual act. It is enough to get you thrown out, whether or not you performed well in service.

    I can understand wanting to restrict sexual behavior but homosexuals are very capable of restraining their libidos just as well (or as poorly) as heterosexuals.
    Voted for by Ns243cxcvi.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • Incorrigible!
    "Is this a Boston liberal elitist policy..."

    This is clearly an argumentative fallacy. A textbook example of the Latin, "ad hominem"!

    I declare Philosophy Foul, and hereby retire as Champion. All further so-called "points" against anything I have said here, or anything against whatever I believe, is not even worth reading, as you are a proponent of ad homimnem arguments. I suggest you brush up on your debate tactics for a new topic entirely. You have lost, and your blathering responses count for nil.

    What a sad day this is....
    Voted for by Weydon.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • I am glad I have no more military obligation
    If it were my power I would keep things as they are in the military generally. It seems wrong not only Biblically but also politically to compel straights to be in circumstances with people of their own gender that prefer sex with people of their own gender.

    Sure homosexuals should be subject to war-time drafts as much as anyone, yet if they actually are biologically rather than behavorially determined as gays as they may wish people to believe, then it is wrong to barrack them with people of the same gender.

    If gayness is an aberrant behavior choice then votarees could wait until discharge before resuming that practice. No prejudice need attend anyone that does not tell and is not asked.

    The Obama-Gates-Mullins policy seems to be an elitist policy of a decadent class of globalists.

    Voted for by GaryCGibson.
    View 6 comments
  • :

  • Ad Hominems are Personal Attacks
    Many do not know the difference between an ad hominem argument and a red herring. This wikipedia article has a list of logical fallacies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    Some people use a straw man argument to intentionally misrepresent another's point of view...one knocks down a 'straw man'. An example would be the argument that homosexuals represent a communist plot to subvert the impeccable warrior virtue of the U.S. Army.

    --here is another example of an argument with some logical fallacies...

    With Prince Snow's success atv getting women to serve on subs (she's really a Senator), straight guys in close quarters with sensuous women in a plain Gates era will have double trouble and the possibility of realous jages on their hands. Seamen were always such intellectually reserved individuals as a class though that they will find no challenges in keeping the discipline troubles down.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

    I have found, in a decade of internet chat-room/blogging experience, that homosexuals more often make personal attacks on general topic of opposition to that practice, than most others writing on issues of other sorts. The other group that makes a lot of ad hominem arguments are flunkies of environmentally exploiting corporations.

    'Don't ask don't tell' could be changed such that it would remain the policy yet if homosexuals mentioned their preference constituting a kind of sexual harassment of heterosexuals, they would be discharged generally to a civil service-such as support for NPR or building steel pipe geodesic domes in Haiti for a homelessness reduction effort until their ETS date arrives.

    With the Ga-morpheme leadership team at D.O.D. the issue was bound to arise. I recollect when General Ebbs was posted in Alaska after the end of the Cold War.

    Here are a few of the logical fallacies commonly used in chat-rooms...

    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/

    Begging the question,ad hominem red herring, post hoc,appeal to authority etc.
    Voted for by GaryCGibson.
    View 1 comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →