CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Obama Nominates Gay Secretary for the Army
President Obama has nominated the first openly Gay civilian to become the secretary for the Army. His name is Eric Fanning and he does come with the experience.
Why on Earth do they tell everyone what his sexual orientation is? It is no one's business! This is why so many people fight against Gay activists. They must constantly push it down everyone's throats.
If a man is qualified for a job, GREAT! Give it to him and quit telling everyone what he does in bed! I don't want to know if a person is Gay or straight when they appoint him to a position. As long as his sexual orientation would not keep him from doing his job and does not force a religious family owned business to hire him, I am fine with him gettng any job.
Damn..i was thinking the same thing. The government appears to be "seeking" a controversy. When i was in the military i was told that when an act is so unusual that you pause and focus your attention on it, take the time to examine what else is going on because "that" is likely a diversion.
Soooo, there's probably other things going on that the president doesn't want the public to focus on right now.
Yes, I used the words Gay activists but it is usually a combination of the liberal media, Liberal Democrats, or Gay activists. Pick one. They are all paranoid insecure control fanatics.
How do you know that the original notice came from liberal outlets rather than conservative ones? I concede that liberal media like to make a big deal out of celebrating identity like this, but conservative media have their own track record of using identity to discredit candidates too. Neither is especially oriented at what actually matters; that sort of thing does not sell as well.
You sound just like Generiname. Always playing the devil's advocate and trying to deny the obvious. Of course it is possible someone else put out his Gayness but OBVIOUSLY the Left constantly pushes the gay agendas!
It is very tiresome and why I finally end up banning. It's a waste of time debatng people wo deny the obvious only to make their side right.
I am not playing devil's advocate in this instance. I am asking a legitimate question to which neither yourself nor anyone else has had a substantive answer. I already agreed that liberal media has a bias, but I happen to extend the criticism to conservative media as well. I am glad you concede my point that it is possible someone else publicized his identity; that was my sole point so there really is no point in "debating" further.
P.S. You ban people just for disagree with you and your attempts to rationalize your actions in that regard are quite evidently post hoc.
Hogwash, I ban people for good reasons and my reasons are MY REASONS. None of your business who I decide to ban. That is typical Liberal nanny state PC garbage. Quit trying to tell people how to debate and who they can or can not ban. I will debate how I wish and could care less how you debate with others.
I conceded nothing other than the possibility his Homosexuality was brought up by others. But then I used my brain and the things I have witnessed these past 30 years, and came to the more obvious conclusion.... this is but one more time when the Left is pushing their homosexual agendas down our throats. All other groups be damned because they get little mention from the Left.
Hogwash, I ban people for good reasons and my reasons are MY REASONS.
I assure you, said reasons are not "good".
None of your business who I decide to ban.
Yes, ban everyone and yell into the void.
That is typical Liberal nanny state PC garbage.
Saying "Hey, you on a debate website: you should debate rather than silencing everyone" is hardly liberal, nanny state, or PC.
Quit trying to tell people how to debate and who they can or can not ban
It's not really about telling you how to debate, because you don't debate. It's about telling you to debate.
I will debate how I wish and could care less how you debate with others.
But that's the thing: You don't debate at all. You silence or insult anyone who disagrees with you, then declare each and every one of your opinions self apparent.
I conceded nothing other than the possibility his Homosexuality was brought up by others
Funny how you didn't even bother to find out how his homosexuality came up but you felt justified in attacking him and the left immediately*. Facts be damned, eh?
But then I used my brain and the things I have witnessed these past 30 years, and came to the more obvious conclusion.
Your obvious conclusions are notoriously baseless, at least the ones you have posted here.
You ban people for dubious reasons and attempt to rationalize it afterwards. I observed this, but said nothing about whether you could or should do so. You, on the other hand, have created entire debates wherein you explicitly tell other people how they can and cannot debate.
Even if your subjective inference from personal experience legitimated your generalization (which it does not), it is a logical fallacy to assume without evidence that the generalization applies to this specific instance. You are relying upon a faulty and over-extended generalization because you do not know the facts of the case. My point stands.
Let me make this very clear. I could care less what you think of how I debate, who I ban, or anything esle I do. You are no better than any other person on this site and you don't make the rules. This is typical moron Liberal mentality thinking you have the right to tell people how to act.
It is you and the people I ban who are the control freaks. I will ban you if I hear one more moronic statement to how I debate and who I choose to ban.
Is that clear enough for you? So when I ban you it will be very clear why.
The arrogance of fool Liberals who think they can run our lives, redistribute our money, take our gun rights, force us to pay for abortions, force us to buy their version of healthcare, etc. etc. SO TYPICAL!
Let me make this very clear. I could care less what you think of how I debate, who I ban, or anything esle I do.
If you could care less, that means that you do care what he thinks.
You are no better than any other person on this site and you don't make the rules.
He is better than many people on this website.
This is typical moron Liberal mentality thinking you have the right to tell people how to act.
You think that as well, and you say as much all the time. Oddly enough, you spend most of your time decrying the liberal "anything goes" mentality. Then this.
It is you and the people I ban who are the control freaks. I will ban you if I hear one more moronic statement to how I debate and who I choose to ban.
By banning everyone, you prove that you are the "control freak".
Is that clear enough for you? So when I ban you it will be very clear why.
And you will be left alone, again, screaming into the void.
The arrogance of fool Liberals who think they can run our lives, redistribute our money, take our gun rights, force us to pay for abortions, force us to buy their version of healthcare, etc. etc. SO TYPICAL!
Oh wah, people complain about you silencing others so clearly everyone is out to control your life.
I never said you cared what I think. I never claimed to be better than anyone else. I never attempted to make any rules for how others debate, although you certainly have (which either makes you a liberal or means your argument is wrong). I am also not a liberal, which has been thoroughly explained to you multiple times elsewhere. But by all means, go ahead and ban me for your erroneous and subjective reasons; that is your prerogative and it will save me the waste of responding again (not that I am particularly inclined to do so anyways at this point).
P.S. I take the actual point of contention as tacitly conceded due to your continued failure to demonstrate that this particular case of publicity was originally driven by liberal media.
Not once have I told anyone whom they can and cannot ban. Quote me if you disagree, but otherwise your accusation is entirely unfounded. Unless you can do so or unless you address my actual point on this debate I do not intend to respond further.
I was not complaining about your behavior; merely observing. You also never asked me to validate those observations. Now that you have, I refer you to your debate "God Loves You (3)" in which you enumerate numerous controls upon other debaters regarding what they can and cannot say. You subsequently banned me for violating your rules, therefore restricting me through the imposition of your views.
Notably, you still have provided no evidence for your erroneous claims regarding my statements. Presumably because you have none.
P.S. Earlier intentions aside, I found myself bored and with time to kill: hence this response.
For nominations like this, one does not need to"push it down everyone's throats" because the media will do that for you.
Do you have evidence of the nominee in question doing it? Or are you just lashing out at him when your ire should really be directed towards the media who feels the need to force everyone under labels, generally with the intent of causing conflict?
Ok, i do largely agree with you, but it does have some significance. Not nearly as much as some media may make it out to me, but if things like this had no significance, no one would care that Obama was the first black president.
When a group has been actively persecuted for years, even as the persecution is starting to wane, it is still significant when members of that group achieve success in places they had not achieved success in before.
However, i do agree that there is no need to treat this particular event with any special significance beyond noting it's significance for the homosexual community. Outside of that, it has no impact on anyone.
The Homosexual community needs no more special mention than any group of people. Their agendas have been at the top of the list for most of the Liberally biassed media for decades. They get this special mention because Liberals in our media and Government have but one agenda, and it is not the good of America.
It is the good of their liberal socialostic ideology that drives every election, that drives abortion on demand, that drives so called global warming rhetoric, that drives race bating for the vote, that censors any mention of Christianity in public, that drives forcing every state to change their marriage laws, gun control, forced healthcare. etc. etc.
Our nation is in the mess we are in (18 TRILLION IN DEBT), a dead economy for the past 6 years, a world in chaos, broken families, etc. because our Government spends most of it's time pushing an ideology rather than fighting Terrorism, creating jobs, growing our economy and reducing that debt.
The Democrat party has become an extremist party and no longer cares for all Americans.
The Homosexual community needs no more special mention than any group of people
Arguable. They have made substantial progress, but they still have a bit more to go.
Their agendas have been at the top of the list for most of the Liberally biassed media for decades.
No it isn't. Haven't you forgotten? The number one goal is to turn America into a Socialist State. Oh no way, the number one goal is to slaughter unborn children. No wait that's not right, the number one goal is to persecute Christians. Wait a second, I forgot, that's all a load of crap :P
It is the good of their liberal socialostic ideology
One can not be a Liberal and a Socialist.
that drives abortion on demand
Nope.
that drives so called global warming rhetori
Nope.
that drives race bating for the vote, that censors any mention of Christianity in public
Nope and nope.
that drives forcing every state to change their marriage laws, gun control, forced healthcare. etc. etc.
Nope, nope and nope.
Our nation is in the mess we are in (18 TRILLION IN DEBT), a dead economy for the past 6 years
If a nation has a positive GDP, the economy isn't dead. Just because it isn't what it used to be does not make it dead.
a world in chaos,
The world is in less chaos now than at just about any point in the entirety of human history with the exception of climate change, something you refuse to acknowledge.
because our Government spends most of it's time pushing an ideology
Except that isn't why you are angry. You are angry because they aren't pushing your ideology.
rather than fighting Terrorism
They are. I may not agree with how, but they are.
creating jobs
Any time Democratics try to, you call them socialists. It's absurd, the dichotomy the right has: If the Democratics try to create jobs, then they are Socialists and "The government can't create jobs". But if they don't, then they are failures who refuse to try to create jobs. It's petulant.
growing our economy and reducing that debt
Our economy is growing, albeit rather slowly. Republicans and Democratics disagree on how to grow it, and Republicans aren't going to let Democratic ideas on the matter get passed, so this is a bit absurd. Oh, and the deficit is down dramatically which is the first step to cutting debt.
The Democrat party has become an extremist party and no longer cares for all Americans.
Exactly, sexual orientation shouldn't matter UNLESS the Left and Gay activists once again sue Churches to force them to have Gay Sunday school teachers, or force private Christian family owned businesses to cater events that go against their faith, etc. This is what Conservatives and Christians fight against! We don't hate Gays or any other people, we hate it when they try to force their views into our faith.
Please don't waste my time denying that the Left has not already tried to force these things on the Church and people of faith.
The senate prefer the 'don't ask don't tell' approach as I bet there's many closet gay politicians and since the military has the same attitude I doubt he'll pass.
If he wants to wave his homosexuality around he isn't fit for the disciplined 'keep your mouth shut' attitude of either politics or the military.
We agree. No one that pushes their sexual orientation is deserving of an important job of that magnitude. If he keeps it to himself and this is just one more Democrat party pushing Homosexuality down our throats, then I am fine with his appointment, if he is qualified.
I'm so sick of the Left pushing their agendas down our throats. They make themselves look such the fools constantly cheerleading homosexuality and transgender dysfunction, etc.
All the other groups of Americans can die for all they are concerned.
Very few Conservatives, or Christians, or moderates, etc. are homophobic. That is a lable Democrats put on anyone that does not suscribe to their politics and ideology. They have but one political strategy.
INSULT AND DEMONIZE THOSE WHO WILL NOT BOW DOWN TO THEIR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
You know. It is where you make sure everyone knows you are straight and you make sure everyone who isn't straight gets an extra helping of knowing you are straight.