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.
Homosexuals being in the Military
Tell me what the problem is about gays joining the military! I don't think it's a problem because they are fighting for the country and especially what the believe in so what is the reason that gays shouldn't have a chance to be in the Military.
okay i think i'm at the best position to speak here. i'm a gay, and i'm not afraid or ashamed of admitting this. and my darling has served in the army before.
some nuts say we are feminine and not strong enough to protect our country. are you IDIOTS? do you know us? many homosexuals're very muscular and we are healthy! why cant we serve the country?
okay lemme be serious here i do think that all americans deserve the right and duty to serve our country. we gay people are a part of the US! we are americans! we deserve such right and duty! why the hell some nuts have to exclude us from the military!
and what is a soldier all about? protection. so long as he can protect our country well who the hell cares about who he is what he is. does sexual orientation even matter? does it weaken our ability to fight? is that even relevant? as long as we gay people are capable of protecting the US why cant we be part of the army!
ThePyg mentioned a report suggesting 70% of military men and women are perfectly okay with gays in the military. so when most of the americans are okay with us, what the fuck are those foolish guys complaning about huh?
Openly serving in the military should be a right; if you want to fight for your country, so be it. It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is, you're a patriot and that's a blessing.
The word patriot is meant to represent a person that defends their country, i struglle to find example's of US military actions that were in defense of the US. I not even going to get into what it actually means to be patriot but lets just say i don;t beleive it to be a good thing.
Mark Twain: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
A patriot is someone who supports and defends their nation's freedom. In most American military campaigns in the past, war has been fought for our freedom.
OK, you're right. But in the eyes of the people fighting it, it's patriotism, and we're fighting for freedom. That's the only way the military can justify war. And as long as we're gonna kill for our "freedom" anyway, why not let homosexuals in on it too?
". But in the eyes of the people fighting it, it's patriotism, and we're fighting for freedom."
Thats been one of the main problems with all imperialists, they all beleive they are doing something good, whether its defense of themselves, or spreading civilisation (like the British and French), or spreading democracy etc. etc.
"That's the only way the military can justify war."
I agree. But the debate here isn't over imperialism, it's over homosexuals in the military. And when they join up in the military, they obviously believe in such imperialism. That's all that matters at this point.
And yes, I have read Orwell. 1984 is arguably my all-time favorite book, and his messages are timeless.
Just because someone joins the military doesn't mean they agree with everything the military does nor does it mean they believe everything the military tells them.
I know, and i agree that homosexuals shoulld have the right to go and get themselves killed in the name of a false ideal, just the homosexual Nazis in Hitlers army.
There may or may not be a problem with it, the question is on whether the cons outweigh the pros.
I have not heard of any evidence to suggest that our military will do poorly if gays are allowed to be open in the military.
Even so, I did hear of a report saying that 70% of military men and women are okay with gays in the military. Is that last 30% going to make such a big fuss that we would not be able to keep a powerful fighting force? I find it farfetch'd to say so.
Well you didn't really say you were agsint it or in favour of it, and i should have stated my opinion which i happen to share with Bill Hicks (i.e. im all for gays in the military) but since you didn't take a side either way i shouldn't have disputed you.
Imagine that... Garry disputes something I say. If I said the moon was gray you'd find a way to dispute it and blame the United States.
As for your video... I actually watched it for a change... I was unimpressed to say the least.
Maybe if anyone cared enough about Ireland to try to take it down and murder your fellow citizens you'd understand what it means to put your life on the line to defend your country.
And, I mean no disrespect for Ireland to say the least... If the apocalypse does come and it's the west versus the east, Ireland will side with us and you will be a minority in your country.
"Imagine that... Garry disputes something I say. If I said the moon was gray you'd find a way to dispute it and blame the United States"
Ah come on, thats below the belt.
"As for your video... I actually watched it for a change... I was unimpressed to say the least."
Have you never heard of Bill Hicks? Im quite surprised.
"Maybe if anyone cared enough about Ireland to try to take it down and murder your fellow citizens you'd understand what it means to put your life on the line to defend your country."
Actually the British cared enough about our country to invade us, occupy our land, change our language, customs, traditions, planted settlers on Irish land (of which Northern Ireland is todays by-product, in fact N.I isn't only place it really worked although it the only place it worked on a large scale but there a fwe towns dotted about the country that are predominantly protestant from those days).
This went on for 800 years furing which time rebellion after rebellion was crushed, all in defense of dream of freedom, of reclaiming our national identity. So you see i understand what your getting at beleive i do, ive always been fond of history, the very first books i read seriously were old irish history books.But you see i don't view american as some kind of victim cause i have this thing on my shoulders called a brain. I see the US as they deserve to be seen, as imperial conquerers just like the British.
"And, I mean no disrespect for Ireland to say the least... If the apocalypse does come and it's the west versus the east, Ireland will side with us and you will be a minority in your country."
Ah... I see your arrogance rearing it's ugly head again. Thanks for the history lesson but I already knew that and it is just that, history. That is sort of my point.
As for the U.S. being the victim? Even someone with your twisted view of things has said that you don't blame all the American people but blame the elites and the government... then certainly there are American victims. Can there not be victims on both sides?
"Ah... I see your arrogance rearing it's ugly head again. "
Ya you're right but i think we both know who soured this exchanged, don't say things like, " If I said the moon was gray you'd find a way to dispute it and blame the United States", and not expect an arrogant response, ill treat you respect when i get it myself.
" Thanks for the history lesson but I already knew that and it is just that, history. That is sort of my point."
I know what it is, im taking about what can be inferred from it.
"Even someone with your twisted view of things"
Again your respectful debating style "raises it's ugly head." My view of things may seem extreme to you but you unfortunately have no conception of the bubble you happen to live in, that doesn't mean im some all knowing superior being with all the angles covered but i can tell your views are completely one sided, and prejudiced. Now you can throw the same criticism back at me but the key difference is i have grown up in the West so im well aware of your side of the argument, i sincerely doubt you are that aware of mine.
"you don't blame all the American people but blame the elites and the government"
Thats right, my passivity is just as much to blame as your or any other american's, im not going to blame somebody for being born into a system and being moulded by it, i couldn't justify blaming a child for loving Kim Jong-il when he's been indoctrinated since the day he was born, and likewise i can't blame any american for supporting their countries actions when they have undergone such similar treatment as it is much more sophisticated, effective, and subtle in tis machinations, and appeals to deep seeded darwinian impulses, and gratifies the ego-conciousness presenting the wolrd a fake place that looks a certain way and works and certain way.
" then certainly there are American victims"
Of course there are, there are victims everywhere, Bradley Manning is just one who's currently being tortured for trying to tell the truth about his countries atrocities in Iraq.
"Can there not be victims on both sides?"
This isn't even up for debate, this is virtual truism.
First of all... I never got an alert to this argument, I just happened upon it... that seems to happen a lot?
Ya you're right but i think we both know who soured this exchanged, don't say things like
The moon comment was just a simple little jab, I think we've had enough exchanges for you to understand that by now? Remember, your first reply ever to me was telling me to hang myself.
As for the rest of this, I either agree or just don't care.
I don't see the point of discrimination against the gay. From my view point it looks like they're the new African Americans. Why should America always discriminate.
Personally, I don't see the problem with it at all. If someone is brave enough to go out, and protect their country, then they should be able to, regardless of their sexual orientation.
There have been mANY, many successful military men who were gay. i think one of them may be known by some historians. his name was Alexander the Great. One of the greatest commanders in military history! It is ashame that people who want to defend their country (* a country btw that supports their right to be gay) and they have to hide who they are in fear of being beaten, ostricised etc. when it does not hamper their abilty to shoot a gun or kill an enemy!
Principally gays feel artistic way. It`s necessary to ask him what hi like more: military or the art. If hi like more military, go ahead to be a militar!
Who cares? If he can shoot a gun right, why the hell should it matter? I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but unless you get raped suck it up. This should never have been an issue in the first place. >.<
Personally, I take a neutral position on homosexuality. As for their ability to join the military, I am perfectly fine with an American citizen fighting for our rights. That being said, I do not think that they should necessarily go around revealing that they are in fact gay. An important element of the military's success is a feeling of unity, and we are still at a point in this country where finding out that a soldier is gay could cause resentment within the unit. If a soldier isn't going to give his 100% to save a fellow American (due to homophobia), it weakens the unit overall. Each soldier needs to feel that he or she will give their 100% to protect each and every member of their unit, and making a statement about one's sexuality that could cause strain is just asking for trouble IMO. I still stand by my POV that they should be welcome in the military, however.
They're hired murderers. It doesn't matter if they're black, white, gay, straight, asexual, whatever. If they want to run around murdering people under the guise that they're being 'patriots', let them. I say let women fight too, even out the idiot factor.
There isn't a problem with it, but the idea that you should announce to the world that you are gay and military isn't necessary. Sexual orientation shouldn't really matter at all. However, it shouldn't be about that; one's first identity should simply be an American soldier, not a homosexual American soldier.
Also, announcing your homosexuality may induce violence and discrimination. This shouldn't happen, but it does. It may even be in a person's own good to simply keep this information to themselves, because most likely there isn't going to be a lot of gay sex happening in the army anyway.
There isn't a problem with it, but the idea that you should announce to the world that you are gay and military isn't necessary
I don't think anyone is arguing that they should walk into the barracks with a pink feathered robe and announce "Hey! I'm gay!"
The argument is whether or not they should be expelled if and when their sexuality becomes a topic of conversation.
Sexual orientation shouldn't really matter at all.
I fully concur.
However, it shouldn't be about that; one's first identity should simply be an American soldier, not a homosexual American soldier.
Well, yeah! THAT is their argument. Here's the thing: a heterosexual can hang pin-ups in their locker, talk about the hot chicks they banged on leave, tell stories about their girlfriends and wives, and not worry about losing their ability to serve their country with honor. Under DADT, homosexuals couldn't do any of tha in regards to the men they liked. When they are firing a bullet into the head of a terrorist, they are a soldier. But they are also comprised of everything that adds up to their whole, including who they find attractive.
Also, announcing your homosexuality may induce violence and discrimination.
You think they don't know that? In my opinion, one who willingly walks in to a scenario where they might be killed before they even SET FOOT IN ENEMY SOIL is one brave individual. And we need courage in our ranks, especially these days. ALSO, they AREN'T BEING REQUIRED TO ANNOUNCE THEIR SEXUALITY THROUGH A BULLHORN. All that's being asked is that if others discover that they are gay, that it doesn't affect their service record.
It may even be in a person's own good to simply keep this information to themselves, because most likely there isn't going to be a lot of gay sex happening in the army anyway.
Ummm, chances are, if a homosexual enters the armed forces, it is because they want to serve their country, not get laid....much like heterosexuals who enlist...
True, which is EXACTLY why there shouldn't be an issue at all. Since sex shouldn't have a place in the military, sexual orientation should be irrelevent. And one's orientation should not be grounds for termination in and of itself.
Alright, I agree with you that sexuality has no place in military. So why is it necessary to declare you are a homosexual when there is absolutely no reason to do so unless you are some self-righteous gay rights advocate. But politics cannot get in the way of the military duties soldiers must serve.
Don't ask, don't tell worked perfectly fine. This allows for homosexuals to serve alongside heterosexuals without politics, sex, or religion distracting from the ultimate goal. Once again, I am only on this side because obviously the issue is not whether homosexuals should be in the army or not, but whether one should share their sexual orientation one way or another.
So why is it necessary to declare you are a homosexual when there is absolutely no reason to do so unless you are some self-righteous gay rights advocate.
It isn't. And that is not what DADT opponents are arguing for. Just because a homosexual is allowed to serve does not mean they are required to be universally identified by their sexuality. It just means that if it becomes public knowledge, they wouldn't have to worry about being discharged from the military.
Don't ask, don't tell worked perfectly fine.
No it didn't. It caused many servicemen and servicewomen to loose their jobs over something that has nothing to do with their ability to serve. It caused homoesexual soldiers to have to lie and hide things from the people who are trusting them with their lives. It likely caused a lot of people who had the skill and desire to serve their country to not enlist in the first place (and in a time when we fight multiple wars on multiple fronts, we need all the willing and capable soldiers we can get.) It opened the door to blackmail.
This allows for homosexuals to serve alongside heterosexuals without politics, sex, or religion distracting from the ultimate goal.
Not at all. First, DADT had nothing to do with religion or politics. Second, it was probably very distracting to the homosexuals who were serving under DADT and had to constantly hide a big portion of their identity.
But since you did bring up politics and religion, lets remember that people of any political persuasion or any religion can serve and don't have to hide it. They may choose not to bring it up, but their job isn't on the line over it. DADT identified an aspect of one's life that shouldn't be an issue and puts pretty high stakes on keeping it secret.
Once again, I am only on this side because obviously the issue is not whether homosexuals should be in the army or not, but whether one should share their sexual orientation one way or another.
Then you aren't really in the right debate. The title of the debate is "Homosexuals being in the military", and you are on the "There's a problem with it" side.
The sexuality isn't a part of their military career. Whilst military men and women do have sex, they do so on their own time, and what happens in their own time, legally, between consenting adults is not the business of the military.
I never said they should have less rights. Obviously no one is making the point taht homosexuals simply shouldn't be able to serve. I'm saying that we should go back to the Don't ask, Don't tell policy, because it eliminated any kind of military distraction in politics, religion, and sex.
It was not "don't ask don't tell" for straight people. If a straight man let on to his buddy that he slept with a woman the night before, would he be discharged? No! Would a straight man have to pretend that his boyfriend was actually just his roommate? Of course not! DADT was excessively hard on gay men, for no reason other than the continuation of an outdated policy.
That is the problem with the military. They try to create robots. Cannot be human beings. Just follow orders, many are still these programmed robots even when they come back. As much as I appreciate their sacrafices. This dispute you just posted is silly. To actually want people not to act human is rediculous and unrealistic!
When you unrealistically repress your sex drive what do you end up with? Tailhook, the catholic priest scandal etc. waht is worse for the military soldiers having sex or the scandals caused from repressing that sexual drive so that it appears in a different form. like anger etc.
Once again, sex has no place in the military. How did heterosexual men serve in the army for the hundreds of years before women were also allowed to serve? Sex is simply a known sacrifice one makes by entering the military. Don't try to tell me that it's not possible to be in the military without having sex.
Apparently you don't think in pragmatic terms. It is not practical at all to think that there is no sex in the military. Even before DADT was repealed it had a presence. It has a presence in every aspect of life, period. DADT was an oppressive policy and was depriving individuals of their liberty, primarily freedom of speech/expression. By saying that DADT should be in effect, you are therefore undermining the constitution, the founding fathers, and what our country has stood for since it's formation. I agree that sexual orientation should not be an issue, but it is completely unrealistic (and unacceptable) to assume that just because it shouldn't be that we have the right to govern whether or not it is.
Devil's Advocate? Serving in the military deprives those individuals of many other liberties as well. Due process of law is one; a court martial or military tribunal is rather different from the legal system that civilians enjoy. Freedom of speech is another; soldiers cannot officially speak plainly to officers without their leave, though it does happen from time to time.
We aren't talking about civilians here, we are talking about soldiers. In the interest of a functional, organized military, with obedient soldiers and solidarity amongst the troops, a number of freedoms must be curtailed somewhat. Free expression can undermine the authority of officers and exacerbates the problem of soldiers forming cliques rather than forming solidarity amongst their own unit. Free sexuality can do much the same. Proper due process in terms of the military has similar problems- the many loopholes and appeal processes in our normal court system means the process is altogether too slow and lets too many people off for it to function properly in a military context. It's bad enough when a criminal gets off on a technicality; what if soldiers were doing the same, and we were handing them their guns back immediately?
Curtailing freedoms- MANY freedoms- is necessary to have a functional military. You can't look at soldiers in the same way as you look at ordinary citizens because of that. I'm of the mind that DADT should be extended to all the various types of gender identity and sexual orientation, even including the baseline heterosexual male-identifying male. Religion and political views for that matter, as well.
I don't think gay should be allowed in the military. If gays were allowed in the military it would cause problems. I mean I don't have a problem if your gay. But I hate it when your flamboyant about it and many people in the military would be too and if your not flamboyant then why does it matter anyway? And lets be honest here, how many times do you think a gay person will be bullied in the military.
There's a saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and I think that it applies here. If your gay and you want to join the military then just join, if want to yell out your gay and your proud of it then you just look stupid. No one should need to know and why would you need to tell anyone else you are? When your in the military you should only be thinking of one thing and that is the mission at hand and if your waiting on base then do whatever you want.
If gays were allowed in the military it would cause problems.
Dozens of countries now allow homosexuals to serve in the military. To best of my knowledge, none of them have reported any problems with effectiveness or morale. Israel is well known to have one of the most active and successful armed forces in the world. They allow gays to serve openly and it hasn't hampered their success in any detectable way.
and if your not flamboyant then why does it matter anyway?
It isn't about being flamboyant. It is about the fact that if someone gets outed, they loose their job. This means they have to spend the whole time they are in the military hiding something that is a central part of their lives, whereas heterosexuals can go around talking about their wives or past sexual conquests without worrying about their legal ability to serve their country.
And lets be honest here, how many times do you think a gay person will be bullied in the military.
They know this. If they want to serve their country despite of this, that is their decision to make, and shows considerable bravery and patriotism on their part.
There's a saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and I think that it applies here.
Here's some ways in which DADT was broken: it caused many perfectly capable men and women to lose their jobs over a factor that has nothing to do with their ability to serve. It caused many people to choose not to serve. It created distractions to gay servicemen who had to constantly watch what they do and say, even when they are on leave or at base. It created possibility for blackmail.
No one should need to know and why would you need to tell anyone else you are?
Then, do you think that all servicemen should be prohibited from mentioning any reference to their sexuality, including all off-duty conversations about sex or romance, or even the fact they are married or have girlfriends? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
When your in the military you should only be thinking of one thing and that is the mission at hand
And why would gay men and women be incapable of this?
and if your waiting on base then do whatever you want.
Which is the problem, because the homosexuals in the military CAN'T do what they want on base. Hell, even if they are home on leave they have to watch their step, or what they post on Facebook, etc.
there's a saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it I think the fact that the USA and it's military are finally making changes to move forward is a good thing. The military is a broken system what with the way vets are treated when they return from combat or the very low enrollment numbers. If there is a brave enough soul who wishes to stand up for his or her country, they should be allowed to do so without having to hide who they are. Your argument is like going back in time and saying that someone with a different colour skin CAN join in- they just have to cover their face.
It doesn't matter if they get bullied or not! They should have the right to be who they are and not be forced to pretend they are someone other than who they really are. America was founded on the idea of being able to be who you are with being persecuted or punished for it! It's not right and it needs to be fixed period. You wouldn't say that if your black in the military you should have to wear a mask and skin coverings similar to that of a caucasian persons would you?
The uniform code of military justice states the following:
Article 125—Sodomy (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.
Because of this, the military law has always stated that anyone who commits an act of sodomy, whether it be anal or oral sex, with their wife or husband is subject of arrest and dismissal from the United States military. Either this law will have to change or the military will have to continue to exclude homosexuals who are clearly admitting outright they are breaking military law.
Also, adultery and fornication have traditionally been punishable offenses that sometimes result in dishonorable discharge. Acceptance of homosexuals does not bode well for a military that has traditionally been Biblical in its enforcement of sexual morality.
The uniform code of military justice states the following
You will find the question isn't over what UCMJ currently states, but rather if it is justified in such codes of conduct. There is still a lot of discussion between military legal scholars whether article 125 should also be repealed. A similar law within Texas was struck down as being unconstitutional, legal precedence would but this article on the chopping block.
The sexual activities between consenting adults behind closed doors is not for the Federal government to intrude upon.
Because of this,
The Uniform Code Of Military Justice, did not exist prior to 1950
the military law has always stated that anyone who commits an act of sodomy, whether it be anal or oral sex, with their wife or husband is subject of arrest and dismissal from the United States military
Your argument effectively amounts to "It's always been done that way, therefore we should continue to do it that way".
It's a tautology, that tradition is justified because it is tradition. If we followed this line of reasoning no social or political progress would have been made ever. We would still have slavery, and women would still not be allowed to vote, if we had followed tradition for the sake of following tradition.
This mantra is neither intellectually nor socially fruitful.