CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
37
Yes No
Debate Score:57
Arguments:42
Total Votes:66
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (15)
 
 No (22)

Debate Creator

PhxDemocrat(13120) pic



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.

Question:  Will the Senate confirm him?

Yes

Side Score: 20
VS.

No

Side Score: 37
3 points

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.

Side: Yes
2 points

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.

Side: Yes
Nomoturtle(857) Disputed
2 points

there's probably other things going on that the president doesn't want the public to focus on right now.

possible, good strategy for politics, great strategy in military and more so for chess.

but it appears that you would be 'seeking' a controversy

Side: No
2 points

i can agree with you here, but i don't think your quarrel is necessarily with "gay activists" for this instance, but rather with the media.

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8241) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
Cuaroc(8829) Clarified
1 point

This is probably the most sane thing you've ever posted.

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

The day you ever say anything sane will be the day I probably will be dead you plagurist fool!

Side: No
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8241) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
1 point

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?

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
1 point

Sexual orientation shouldn't matter, the character of the person is what matters

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No
2 points

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.

Side: No

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.

Side: No
instig8or(3308) Disputed
1 point

I'm a left-leaning centrist and I understand that in politics and military, such openness is a drawback.

I do not support homophobia though.

Side: Yes
1 point

How do you define "pushing" your sexual orientation?

Side: Yes
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

What makes you think Fanning has been waving his sexuality around?

Side: Yes