The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Legalizing Openly Gay Soliders in the Military

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,951 times Debate No: 8161
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




If I'm gay, then I have the the right to be in the military just like any straight person. All I want is to serve my country and be able to be me at the same time. It isn't fair for anyone to tell me that my sexual orientation is okay, but also tell me that I don't have the same rights as a straight person. It is unbelievably discriminatory.

The military has the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy". They allow gay soldiers in, but you can't tell anyone. They classify it as a mental illness, but don't investigate pontentially gay soldiers. It has already caused severe conflict. Our president, Barack Obama, said, 'The only thing that should be required is patriotism and love of ones country."

I know of a few people who are gay, but are afraid of a discharge from the military, or want to live thier lives without persicution. Even if it is a mental illness, it isn't one that you would go around hurting people, so it isn't fair to discharge openly gay militants, especially since they did not bother to find out the sexual orientation in the first place!

I await my opponents defense. (I would like to modify the resolution. By "military", I mean the USA's military.)


My opponent makes his first contention that homosexuals should be allowed service into the military due to their patriotism however this ignores the fact that a homosexuals serving in the military is a danger to himself and to the American standard of disciple. Homosexuals are almost guranteed not to be able to hide their "orientation" or "mental illness" thus they are subjected to mockery and brutality by their fellow comrades. Seeing as how US male soldiers are of a macho man type they will resent the presence of a femininate and homosexual male, thus they will almost certainly mock them and berate them. So in order to maintain the dignity and safetly of Homosexuals its is much better to bar them from Military service rather than have them cope with disrespect, intolerance, and possibly even serious physical harm. My opponent states at the end of his first paragraph that it is discriminatory, my answer to this is that it is not discrmmination but care as to why homosexuals should not be allowed in the military. Allow me to allude to a scenario:

Joe has condition which is quite deadly he cannot inhale Spanish cooking fumes if he does so he will die painfully, as a result he is barred from working in a spanish restaurant despite his yearning to cook there.

Now I challenge my opponent to answer me this in his rebuttal....Joe was barred from doing something he loves for his own personal safety and to protect the resturant legally from lawsuit. How does this case not apply to homosexuals? Homosexuals should be barred from the military as to protect themselves and to avoid a complicated lawsuit if another homophbic US service man decides to hurt the homosexual. Is Joe being discrminated aginst because of his condtion or is he being barred for his own good?

Now onto the topic of OPENLY gay homosexuals, the "Dont Ask Dont Tell" Policy is an effictive policy in stopping anti-gay attcks if a homosexual decided to openly proclaim, flaunt, and discuss his homosexually he almost gurantees his isolation and mistreatment. By proclaiming your homosexually openly you only hurt yourself and the US cannot afford to have one of its service men hurting themselves for a condition that can simply be concealed. Why on Earth would you want to describe yourself as openly gay amongst a band of hardy macho males who probably would not like having to take showers with a homosexual its suicide! Thus, in order to protect the dignity and safety of homosexuals its absolutely necessary to make them kepp thier condtion or orientation a simple secret. DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT INVESTIGATE, DONT FLAUNT, DONT DISCUSS, DONT PERSECUTE, DONT PROCLAIM, AND DONT COMPLAIN!

Its simple folks all homosexuals have to do is simply keep it a secret for their own good and for their own good of the military. My opponent's arguments all lay heavily on the assumption that its discrminatory to bar an openly gay person from the miltary, well its simply not we are doing this for their own good! If they cant keep a simple secret then they obviously lack the disciple, morality, inner strenght, and willpower that every other American Armed militant needs and requires to do good by their country. As a result I urge my opponent and my viewers to recognize the massive flaw in
the Pro-Argument. I also beleive my opponents Resolution to be utterly disproved and defeated.

I stand ready for my Opponents's Rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1


James.ticknor forfeited this round.


Its a shame my opponent was not able to post his arguments as a result my own arguments stand and maybe he will be able to rebut in the near future. To the audiences and my future judges I will summarize my arguments and rebutals to my oponenets opening arguments.


1. Openly Gay Homosexuals are barred from the military for their own protection and safety.
2. Openly Gays Homosexuals are barred from the miltary beaucase they lack proper disciplane, and cannot wear high heel shoes on the battlefield.
3. Openly Gays are not COMPLETELY allowed to marriage so service in the military is futile and illogical

Main Arguement
1. Barring Open Gays IS NOTdiscriminatory if its for their own good.
Debate Round No. 2


I apologize openly to the audience and my opponent for my...tardyness.

However, I still believe that if I can successfully disprove my opponent and carry my burdon of proof, I can win this debate. I will follow my opponents system of 1. 2. 3. I will rebut first, then reaffirm my case.

1. "Openly Gay Homosexuals are barred from the military for their own protection and safety." - They are not barred from the military, unless they are openly gay. However, they are allowed in if they use discretion. So they are not banned for safety, or else they would all be banned. Secondly, what are we being protected from? Our fellow soldiers, who are trained to fight the enemy-to uphold justice? If a problem lies within the military, it is not the gays who should be penalized for it, it is the military itself. Our government (including the military) is designed to reform to the specific needs of the people. If our country needs protecting, then it is only logical that we need to reform this law.

2. "Openly Gays Homosexuals are barred from the miltary beaucase they lack proper disciplane, and cannot wear high heel shoes on the battlefield." -Allow me to first point out that the military requires use of a uniform, so there would be no high heels for the cross-dressers (not every gay is a crosser you know...). Secondly, a persons sexual preferance has no reflection on their disipline. My homosexual friend has more integrity and displine than I do, that's for certain. So, that point is no longer withstanding.

3. "Openly Gays are not COMPLETELY allowed to marriage so service in the military is futile and illogical" - That point is irrelivant. Just because I can't marry, doesn't mean that I want to marry. Besides, it is legal in some states. If you get married in that state, then it is still legal in all states. It isn't COMPLETELY allowed because marraige rights are not in the Constitution, therefore granted to states. Homosexuality is not widely socially acceptable, so it prevents states from passing the Gay Marraige Law. Besides, this goes back to my point that we first need to know the cause of homosexuality before we convict it itself.

4. "Barring Open Gays IS NOTdiscriminatory if its for their own good." (Main Point) - Observation 1. If this is my opponents main point, and I can disprove it, I should win this debate. -- My opponent believes that it is not descrimintory, and it's for their own good. But what good is that, when you deny someone the right to serve their country? I have disproved and successfully rebutted all of my opponents points. I am on the AFF, so I fail to see the good of banning them, and in this statement, he does not say WHY it's for their own good.

I thank my opponent for what I am sure is going to be an interesting and well fought debate.


Krakken101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent failed to refute my points, therefore, I have won. However, I do acknowledge that I forfieted one round, so I do believe it is permissable for him to rebut, but not establish new arguements that I can not defend.

Thank you for a wonderful (if somewhat incomplete on both ends = D) debate.


Krakken101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by James.ticknor 8 years ago
Excuse my mispelling 'nessiccary'. I agree with theLeward 100%
Posted by James.ticknor 8 years ago
Icarus57, I do not believe that you are being practical. Have you ever heard someone say something like, "Wow, she is hot!" or "I'd 'tap' that." Sure, that isn't nesicarry, but it is a human function and this will eventually come to light that you are homosexual. You said, "Sexuality has nothing to do with being in the military, end of story." Well the military seems to think so. So why should gays let it slide? Shouldn't we fight for what we believe? This is why America was created, and I disagree completely when you say, "Forcing this to become legal is just another stepping stone to fight for gay rights that do not need to exist." Everyone needs basic rights to exist, or else we would live in a lawless society. As I have demostrated in my speech, it is discriminatory.
Posted by Icarus57 8 years ago
The Icarus from greek mythology wanted to be a god, and got himself killed ;)
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Icarus, don't be ignorant. Legalizing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military in no way forces anyone to disclose their sexual orientation. Instead, it challenges irrational and blatant discrimination (which I feel is and should be illegal); would help to eliminate harmful stereotypes; promotes progressive social ideals that in no way harms democracy or other beliefs this country was founded on; and doesn't force anyone to LIE or HIDE their relationships should they choose to be open about them. It establishes freedom in that sense ~ the same freedom that soldiers are supposedly fighting to try and protect.

You say that this would be a "stepping stone to fight for gay rights that do not need to exist" which is just silly. The right to be able to say I'm Gay and still serve in the military is and SHOULD BE a right if people can say I'm Straight and still serve in the military. Moreover, you're ignoring the fact that some soldiers are asked to resign based on their orientation. In other words, this is an issue with real consequences. You trying to lump this into the same category of legalizing gay marriage (which I also support and find a necessary) is a failed attempt at establishing a mere want instead of a right. Well, you're wrong , and if you disagree, challenge me to a debate on it, sir.

The point is: while no one has to tell anyone anything about their sexual preferences, a soldier can be terminated if their preferences don't comply with what's "acceptable" by the federal government, and it's found out. You taking a more hands-off approach to government on this issue is highly flawed. You're also ignoring the fact that many soldiers are hazed or worse as a result of their sexuality (ever see the movie Soldier Boy?). Abre los ojos, mi amigo.

Ps. The Icarus of Greek mythology is a cool cat : )
Posted by Icarus57 8 years ago
Sexuality has nothing to do with being in the military, end of story.
Posted by Icarus57 8 years ago
There is no reason to openly display your sexual preferences in the military, forcing this to become legal is just another stepping stone to fight for gay rights that do not need to exist. Why would a gay person need to tell his fellow service people his sexual preferences? Why would a straight person need to tell his fellow service people his sexual preferences? The answer to both of these questions is, "He doesn't"
Posted by Ribler 8 years ago
Dont ask, Dont tell!!
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
There are a lot of openly gay people in the military -- thankfully a lot of soldiers have respect for their fellow soldiers and never tell on them to the uppers -- my ex was in the military and she never had a problem -- keeping it as a phobia for the military in legal terms is where the problem hides. Most rational people have moved on from being ignit....
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
War rape would be taken to a whole new level. Besides, Privates would be all over each other. Especially Private Patrick FitzSimons and Simon Fitz patrick.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
I will take this if its still here when I get back tommorrow
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70