Combat Troops Most Skeptical About ‘Don’t Ask, Don‘t Tell’ Repeal
- Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:10pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
The White House noted Tuesday that a new study from the Department of Defense signaled that a repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on gays openly serving in the military could move forward without major objections. But the very same report suggests that many U.S. combat troops are not as enthusiastic about the repeal as other members of the military.
The AP reports:
President Barack Obama, citing the troop poll, urged the Senate to repeal the ban before adjourning in the next few weeks, but there is still no indication GOP objections can be overcome with just a few weeks left in the postelection lame-duck session. Still, the survey did put new pressure on Republican opponents, led by Sen. John McCain, who say efforts to repeal the law are politically motivated and dangerous at a time of two wars. …
The Pentagon survey found that some two-thirds of troops don’t care if the ban is lifted. Of the 30 percent who objected, most of them were in combat units.
Opposition was strongest among combat troops, with at least 40 percent saying repeal would be a bad idea. That number climbed to 58 percent among Marines serving in combat roles.
A summary of the report said 69 percent of respondents believed they had already served alongside a gay person. Of those who believed that, 92 percent said their units were able to work together and 8 percent said the units functioned poorly as a result.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 676 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 527 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 398 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 371 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 328 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 265 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 275 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 146 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 265 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (218)
whitaker
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 3:23amFirst the study is flawed by including relatives and not just soldiers. Alot fo the military is young conservative males that are uncomfortable around gays. The military is about machoism, not some community orginazation that needs social correction for a very small minority so they can wave it in the face of others. Removeing the DADT will encourage some to break the rule PDA(public display of affection). Morale and discipline will suffer (blanket parties) as well as those reuping for more terms. A liberal military is very dangerous, just look what at the damage a liberal goverment has caused to this country. I have no problim with someone being gay but alot of them try to force others to accept it instead of just allowing them there own views. I am 3rd gen military grandfather 22yrs, father 2 tours in vietnam, I server 1 term all of us were army.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 3:44amSo called “Liberal” armies fight and die alongside soldiers from the United States. Canada, the UK, Australia, Denmark, have fought and died in Afghanistan. Israel allows gay soldiers to serve openly. The group of countries that don’t allow gays to serve openly are a rather poor company. Countries like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and a slew of other undemocratic societies exclude gays from the military.
No one is asking you to love gay people, just asking to let them fight and die for their country and be honest while doing it. I don’t understand how that is so difficult.
Report Post »whitaker
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 4:48amWay to take Liberal out of contex I even gave a comparison to the current liberal goverment. Sooo “The group of countries that don’t allow gays to serve openly are a rather poor company” are you refering to our own military? But what is so wrong with DADT? If the military had there way everyone serving (straight or gay) would be under a DADT. A relationship is a distraction to your duty and should be done outside of the military.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:58amYou people need to grow up, really. You probably meet and know many people who are gay and you don’t even know it. Just because someone is gay that does not mean they spend all day running around in a rainbow speedo and guess what, that guy probably won’t join the army.
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:52amWhy is this still an issue? Good lord, this is 2010. In 50 years, we are going to look on times like these when gays couldn’t serve our country openly or legally marry and shake our heads at how ignorant our country was, just like we do when we look back at segregation
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:24amIf we do make it fifty more years, it would be quite the miracle. I personally believe His judgment is commencing right now, just pick up a newspaper.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:31amWe are watching the death throes of old style social conservatism, most young people feel the same way you do and the United States is becoming more diverse. The views seen on this site will become fringe minority views in the future, just as racism and white supremacy are today.
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:44am@ cognitivedissonance So you think there’s a future for this sinful world? Sorry to disappoint you, but judgment is here. Repent!
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 3:12amIf you truly are a follower of Christ than you know full well the only person you can judge is yourself.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:38amAlso, judgment has been “just around the corner” for about 2000 years now. I’m not holding my breath.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:30amIf someones sexual orientation gets in the way of the job (whatever it might be) being done in the very best way possible it is a problem that has to be corrected. This is something that has to be dealt with on an individual basis.
Report Post »I do not want to hear about anyone else’s sexual exploits, no matter what orientation. That goes for my time in the Army as well as any other job I’ve had.
If the group you’re working with is effected in any way to detract from excellent performance by your behavior (sexual or otherwise) you must be removed. Our nation’s defence requires excellence.
What would be wrong with forgetting DADT and dealing with people only according to the military code of conduct. DADT provides unintentional consequences and undue emphasis.
I guess what I want to say is. shut up about it and get the damn job done!
ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:49amExactly
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:56amYup. There is absolutely no argument whatsoever against it besides outright bigotry.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 5:00amMalachai said, “Yup. There is absolutely no argument whatsoever against it besides outright bigotry.”
There will be no separate barracks, if DADT is repealed. That means gays will be allowed to OPENLY admire a straight man’s junk — or worse. It means straights will have to watch OPENLY gay men admire each other. Why is it bigotry if straights find open gay sexual expression in a nude environment disgusting, and don’t want to be forced to watch or experience it? That sounds pretty bigoted to me. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67N5MV20100824
BTW, why hasn’t the Pentagon released the survey results to questions about shared open bay showers and rooms?
Report Post »cydog
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:06amI served 24 years in the Army and all but three of those were in special operations. There is no doubt in my mind that the study is flawed. I am sure I have served with members who have kept their private life just that, private. In order to have a functional military you must rely on good order and discipline. it is not a right to serve, but a duty and a privilege if you meet the requirements. To me this is all about changing the culture of the military. It is very conservative now but they are doing their best to change it.
Report Post »squeaker
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:16amWell said CYDOG
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:54amAnd what actual evidence do you have to support that someone not having to hide that they are gay would actually harm the military? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that has been brought forth that supports your stance. It’s all been bigoted, political, religiously charged nonsense.
Report Post »HumanDoing
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:06amYou are not Catholic, Black, Jewish, Christian, Asian , Protestant, a Teacher, a Stock boy, White, Mexican, Lesbian, Country Boy, etc etc
You are a “United States Soldier” Period !!
and thanks to all who serve!
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:38amThe military is not the place for politics OR Social engineering. What kind of special ‘rights’ come next? Since when do we concern ourselves with peoples sexuality in the military. Since when do we include ‘sensitivity’ training in boot camp for the military?
Report Post »Don’t ask – don’t tell makes it legal for anyone to be in the military! The notion that it needs more than that is already evidence that repeal is a stepping stone to something. Guaranteed we will have the military tied up in lawsuits, then quotas on how many gay generals we have. Do the terrorists actually need more to hate Democracies? This will be a recruiting tool far more than throwing water on terrorists ever could (terrorists respect that).
azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:38amThe next time that the left wants to show that Beck followers are a bunch of small minded bigoted haters, they can reference this thread as evidence. I served in the Navy on Submarines. That’s as close quarters as you can get. Everybody knew who the gay folks were and we all got along just fine. Of course we had the benefit of education and intelligence, something that is in short supply here.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:48amPretty much every thread here is a great example of the rampant small mindedness on this site, but the DADT ones are especially so. Seriously, if you can stand being shot at and having people try to kill you, you can probably stand to shower with someone who is gay. Also, just because someone is gay does not mean they are attracted to you, don’t flatter yourselves.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:55amThank you for your comments. I think most of these posters have never served.
Report Post »TruthTalker
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:56amor we can use your statements to show lack of tolerance to heterosexuals. bottom line is there is a balance. do not be heterophobic and they wont be homophobic. Should not be either way. Either way, why is the sexual thing even being a factor? Leave it alone. Leave it In the bedroom where it belongs and then let us be Americans.
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:23amServing in the military of this great country is a noble profession, but it is not a measure of honor. Righteousness in whatever profession you have is the only measure of honor. Again, I say, the best way to serve your neighbor is to live a sin free life, or try to get as close as you can. A lot of people doing that would be the solution to this nations woes.
Report Post »azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:25am@TruthTalker
Lack of tolerance for heterosexuals? What does that even mean? Are you calling me heterophobic? Here’s one clue for you, heterophobic is not a word. It’s also not a concept. The 90% majority never requires tolerance. Tolerance is only required for out of the mainstream unpopular ideas. Heterosexuality was alive and well the last time I checked. But I’ll check again as soon as possible :-)
It’s easy to say “leave it in the bedroom where it belongs.” I interpret that to mean, “shut up and go away.”
Consider this. When a hetero soldier has a juicy conversation with his foxhole buddy about his last conquest, or maybe even the next, no harm no foul. No consequence, no punishment, no nothing, and I think that’s probably correct. If a gay service member has the same conversation, if he‘s lucky he’ll get a general discharge, but a discharge he will get. Is that what you mean by balance? Is that what you mean by American?
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:46am“Tolerance is only required for out of the mainstream unpopular ideas.”
No, it is only “required” by liberal fools trying to fool others into acceptance of evil.
“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil” Thomas Mann
Report Post »azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:25amIf you had read The Magic Mountain, rather than just quoting from it, you would have benefited from Settembrini’s wisdom. There is a huge gulf between tolerance and fanaticism. Most of us live somewhere in the center. You have shown yourself a fanatic. It’s a true sickness, and immersion in literature and an absorption of ideas that are not your own is the cure.
Report Post »tierrah
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 9:37amI truly don’t understand what the gays are wanting … they serve in the military without problems. The only legitimate (IMHO) argument I’ve read is that they are unable to talk about their “loved” one with others. Don’t you usually discuss your family/loved ones with friends? There are many gays in the service, according to some of you … so I would think they have many people with whom to discuss their sexual preferences and “loves”. Do they want to discuss their love life with someone who is uncomfortable with it? I truly don’t understand what is being sought here.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:34amBradly Manning was openly gay and even then he couldn’t stand “society” so he betrays the country when his boyfriend breaks up with him
Report Post »Most homosexuals are very emotional and easily angered
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7918632/Bradley-Manning-suspected-source-of-Wikileaks-documents-raged-on-his-Facebook-page.html
DMD
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:33amGI Beans
Report Post »GI gravy
Gee I think I just poked Davey…
Something tells me a **** would not do to well in a fox hole with a Marine.
RepubliCorp
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 5:25amBut the flower arrangements would be nice…….. sorry couldn’t help myself
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:29amDeutscher is another gay, I assume. And yes, I do hate people who flaunt their vileness. Keep your perversion to yourself.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:37amVery astute Ron. And a 2nd generation military man. Have you served your country?
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:56amThe best way to serve your country or anyone is to walk in the truth. You cannot do that while gay. It is a sin. That means it is destructive to society.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:02amI thought not.
Report Post »azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:08amSo now we know two things about you.
1. You did not serve your country.
2. You use religion as justification for your hatred.
This thread is changing my mind on the whole gay issue. As a Christian, I have always defended the faith when people suggest that we are haters, anti-gay, etc. I held to the maxim, hate the sin, love the sinner.
Some of you here are just pure evil haters. One of you even called for the murder of gays serving in the military. You are certainly not representative of the Christians that I have always known. But at least now I know who the left are talking about.
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:10amYes, now you know I am a Christian and I am not ashamed of it. Being a Christian is not going to a Christian church or mental acsent to Christian doctrine. To be a Christian you must obey Christ and that precludes being a homosexual, so don’t be deceived, you cannot be saved unless you repent.
The wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God .
Report Post »1 Corinthians 6:9-11
azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:37am@ronmorgen
I didn’t suggest that you should be ashamed for being a Christian. I suggested that you should be ashamed for being a hateful un-christian like man. For that you should be very ashamed.
Can you come up with a Biblical verse which speaks to your rude, arrogant behavior here tonight. It shouldn’t be hard.
Report Post »Oil_Robb
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:02amYes Deutscher…I served my country last year….I paid 180,000 dollars in taxes
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 10:06amVery few people who use the Bible as a reason to hate gays aren’t bigoted or at least quoting the Bible very selectively. Most people who quote the Bible on homosexuality use this passage in Leviticus:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
And it’s true, Leviticus says that. It also says, however:
“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)
Some more choice quotes: Do you have a beard?
“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” (Leviticus 19:27)
Or do you eat pork? Well, I’ve got some news for you…
“…and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.” (Leviticus 11:7)
Or do you like shellfish? Yummy lobster? Well…
“They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.” (Leviticus 11:11)
So please. Don’t use the Bible as a buffet to reinforce your own hatred.
Report Post »mrmikejohnson
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:13amThey should change “Don’t ask, Don’t tell“ to just ”Don’t be gay, it’s a sin”.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:06amWhy does homosexuality scare you all so?
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:09amWhy do you ask, are you gay?
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:12amWould it be relevant if I were?
Report Post »BRAVEHEART
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:16amWho wants to be in a foxhole with someone who throws a grenade like a Sissie??
Report Post »WISEPENNY
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:21amThe same reason Lot and his family had to split from Sodom and Gomorrah. This milestone decision in the history of our U.S. military is begging for God’s judgement to fall.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:21amMaybe Ron is looking for a date. ;-)
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:25amYes, because that’s probably why you ask, idiot.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:29am@braveheart – because all homosexuals are mincing stereotypes?
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:31am@ronmorgen – why don’t you answer the question twice – once assuming I’m gay, and once assuming I’m not. If the answer‘s the same my sexuality’s irrelevant.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:34am@wisepenny. I ask you, if this were the grounds for some judgment, why has it not happened? There are as many gays in the military today as there will be next yr( per capita). Why has this judgment not already fallen due to the rampant “key” parties married servicemen and women participat in on a regular basis? But then again you were suggesting that servicemen murder their gay members.
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:36amThey should keep them separate from straight troops, and give them dainty missions.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:49am@wisepenny. Once again you feel the need to call me names and swear. You can’t conceive of a libertarian gay ex-military man. That is unfortunate for you.
Report Post »The fact that you EXPECT men of honor to shoot thier gay members is offensive to me and to all men of honor. Do you really think so little of our soldiers?
azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:56am@WISEPENNY
Deutscher is absolutely correct. You suggested (not outright, but using weasel words) that an unintended consequence of the repeal of DADT would be that straight service men would intentionally murder their gay fellow service men. It’s exactly what you wrote and in my estimation, exactly what you meant. So, why not grow a pair and stand behind your words?
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:09amPonder: If I get in a argument and I punch the guy in my fox hole, if he is gay will I be charged with a hate crime?
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:01am@RepubliCorp : What a ridiculous question. If you are white, and he is black, and the same scenario occurs, would you be charged with a hate crime?
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 4:59amMALACHAI: ridiculous question? Really …..with the Kenyan and panther loving Holder running things?
Report Post »I would have thought it was ridiculous that carnival ticket takers would be feeling up 8yr old kids at the airport.
WISEPENNY
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:02amThe U.S. Military, once a force to be reckoned with, is now being forced to be reckoned with. I wonder how the enemy deals with the “don’t tellers” deciding to declare their new found freedom to be all you can be? Progressiveness at all costs, though, no matter if it costs us even our souls, right? I’ll be watching for “friendly fire incidents” to be on the rise as an “unrelated” result of the revised policy of “like it or lump it”.
Report Post »These idiotic bureaucrats just can’t figure out the logic; If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:09amIt is broken. And to suggest that members of our military are going to start murdering gays is offensive.
Report Post »WISEPENNY
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:29amOh. Oh I didn’t mean that kind of friendly fire, you silly boy, DOUSHER!
Report Post »azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:34am@WISEPENNY
Then what did you mean? I took your comment the same way Deutscher did. Please explain.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:41amName-calling is never attractive. I am interested in what you ment then?
Report Post »BRAVEHEART
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:49pm58% Of Marine combat troops say NO! NO gays serving openly with Marine combat troops. I stand by their statement, these guys no the danger of gays in front line combat. Listen to what real veterans are saying. Stop with all politically correct garbage, our military is already under extreme pressure and the world isn’t getting any less violent any time soon!
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:28amI agree!
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:45pmour family vets say this little “report” by the “military” is as bogus as it gets.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:55pmHow would they know? At what level were they involved? I am personally aquainted with a Lt Col and Col USAF who worked with the working group for the chief of staff and were present at the congressional briefings. They worked hard for almost a year on this.
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:59amAnd what actual evidence or research do you have that backs this up, other than anecdotal evidence from people who are most likely bigots?
If you want to play that game, I know several people who served in the military (Desert Storm, others) who said that it would make no difference and that DADT was ridiculous. Unfortunately for you, my position has actual research data to back it up.
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:39pmGays can serve in the military. Just don’t let them near your servers with a bunch of blank CDs.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:26amGood One!
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:53ambeyond good
Report Post »squeaker
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:35pmI’m guessing there could be more lives lost to “friendly fire” if this comes to pass.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:46pmThat is a very dim view of combat troops. That they are so insecure that they can’t handle gays in combat. If you think there are no gays in combat now you are sorely mistaken. If a solider performs as is required who they sleep with in their private lives is irrelevant.
Report Post »squeaker
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:00amTo the contrary Deutscher
- It’s something I fear may happen more often. I know there are lots of gay people in the military. I have friends that kids are gay and are in the military that are respectable.
Report Post »BUT, it’s the “flamboyant” gay idiot that will likes to rub it into his fellow troops face over and over that may not leave a foxhole because of his or her stupidity. — You even say in your reply to me “”If a solider performs as is required who they sleep with in their private lives is irrelevant.”"
I absolutely agree, but as I mention, it’s the gay idiot that is going to make it bad for themselves and others. What they do in private is their business, but when they make it other troops business is when the trouble will begin to brew.
Deutscher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 4:18amAnd I am confident this behavior would have this individual deemed unfit or would not occur because these are not the gays that sign up for combat roles
Report Post »Kinnison
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 7:59pmNo Deutcher, it’s not. We do not need two soldiers canoodling in the foxhole when one or both of them is supposed to be on watch. Or jilted lovers tiffing in a firefight. Spent any time in a combat unit? I have. I have also, on active duty, observed several homosexuals who made unsolicited moves on straight troops and almost got beaten to death for their pains. Bad juju.
Report Post »Conserving Ink
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:32pmI find it strange that the last people asked are the first people affected.
Report Post »____________________________________________________________________________
http://conserving-ink.blogspot.com/2010/11/wretched-hive-of-scum-and-villainy.html
NJartificer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:30pmHave the progressives eliminated basic managment classes in the ivy league schools
seems you just cant fix stupid
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:26pmI‘m not in the military and I ’don‘t ask don’t tell’ just because my private life is just that, private. Is it nessesary for anyone, gay or straight to talk about thier sex life with thier co-workers? I’d like all of you military guys to chime in on this one since your experiences with military matters count the most in this discussion, as you are most affected.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:32amMentioning your partner/spouse isn’t really that out of the ordinary, even in professional relationships. My colleagues know that I’m married and some even know my wife, I proudly talk about what she’s doing and I proudly wear or display things they gave me for Christmas, for my birthday or just because. Imagine yourself being forbidden to talk about or even mention your life partner who you, so I’ll assume, love very much. It’s not about sex talk. It’s about denying a very important person in your life.
Report Post »diesel71dan
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 9:16amExactly but then again….. I have never felt the need to have a HETEROSEXUAL parade either.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 9:42amYes, but why lump in the regular, quiet soldier who does his duty and just happens to be a homosexual in with other people that feel the need to display their sexuality? Why should the soldier suffer?
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 10:33amThankyou NVRFORGET I hadn’t thought about it like that. I don’t care what orientation a person is that is between him or her and thier partner and God. It just seems like gays want to shout it from the rooftops and be celebrated for thier lifestyle.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:20pmDon’t get me wrong Kate, I see where you‘re coming from and I’m not going to blame you for being human. But it’s so easy to lump people of a certain kind (be it race, political or sexual leaning etc) together, so easy to condemn, sometimes it’s good to just take a step back and take another look.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:25pmThe survery is skewed in favor of gays in the military. The questions were designed in a manner to create a positive for gay., according to men and women that took the survey.
Report Post »They only surveyed 5 percent of the military and oddly included “relatives” opinions in the mix….about 1/3 ,
That made the entire survery in error. It’ sheer propaganda that was timed with Pews matching “poll” on the subject.
youguysready_letsroll
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:22pmHaving been an 11B in the Army National Guard in a light infantry unit, this doesn’t surprise me. I would think that support units would be more accepting of gays openly serving than combat units.
Report Post »youguysready_letsroll
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 10:00amA possible solution is holding a vote ONLY for active duty, reservists, and folks with a DD214 to continue DADT or allow gays to openly serve.
Report Post »NJartificer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:21pmI say we send big sis to the front line
Report Post »ETOOL USMC RECON
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 7:39amGreat idea…she’s big enough to shield 3 or 4 men……and get bin obama up there too…..to do the ONLY THING he is qualified to do….pass out smokes to men!
Report Post »nuttyvet
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:19pmSome areas are not the ground for making politicaly-correct-motivated statements. The last thing you want in a combat situation is to force controvoursey amongst individuals living in a high stress environment where unit cohesion means life and death.
Report Post »azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:28amThat is one of the arguments made during the 50‘s when Black’s began to be integrated into the Army. It was specious and stupid argument then, and it still is now.
Report Post »barthom
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:42amazkenreid, I really hate it when people equate gay issues with black issues. People are black by birth, and it is a totally good thing, and it is unchangeable. The gay issue is a behavior issue. Treat Black people with more respect.
Report Post »azkenreid
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:30am@barthom
Wrong! It’s not about black and white / gay or straight. It’s about the argument being employed to exclude people that one simply does not like.
Frankly, I find it disgusting, that given the history of the treatment of black people in this country, you would single out gays for discrimination. I guess everybody needs somebody to hate huh?
Report Post »Kaen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:54amUm…Barthom, you are incorrect. Having served 8 years, I do not support the repeal of DADT however, there have been numerous medical studies that show homosexuality is NOT a behavior issue. Homosexuality is basically a birth defect. At the time of conception, the mothers reproductive system fails to switch “On and Off” the X and Y chromisomes properly essentially “Trapping” a biological “Female” in a male body and a biological “Male” in a female body. It really is that simple, a birth defect basically..NOT a choice of the person.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 5:50amKaen: At the time of conception, the mothers reproductive system fails to switch “On and Off” the X and Y chromisomes properly essentially “Trapping” a biological “Female” in a male body and a biological “Male” in a female body.
Hmm. I didn‘t know the mother’s reproductive system had a chromosome-controlling “switch”. “Trapping a biological female in a [biological] male body” and viceversa– are you sure you didn’t get that info from a science fiction novel? If you mean XXY males, their chromosomal makeup does not directly correlate with homosexuality. Please cite your sources.
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:25pmI will indulge those that say it is not a choice but a matter of genetics. Now, let‘s open this Pandora’s Box (can of worms would be too much ammunition for funny guys). Biologically, homosexuality is a defect that is contrary to the propogation of the species. Males cannot reproduce with males nor can females reporduce with females. Thus this issue needs to be treated as a sickness/defect. We would otherwise become extinct, OR reduce some women’s roles in society to be carriers of offspring.
That having been said, I have no problem with the CHOICES people make. As long as it does not harm my family or me. I have many gay friends of whom I have great affection. They know where I stand on homosexuality but I am a firm believer in hate the sin, not the sinner. I don‘t impose my morals on them but don’t mince words when asked. I just remember Jesus’s words, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:7) and his humorous, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3).
Lord knows, I have my plank.
With regard to DADT. We live in a free society. It would ruffle some feathers at first but we are all adults and it would sort itself out. Obviously, those in the military that have a problem with homosexuality in the military are in the minority. There can be a transitional phase or an opt out option where those not comfortable around homosexuals can serve and/or the homosexuals not comfortable with heteros can take the same steps.
We conservatives, I think, need to be consistent. We are super-freedom when it comes to most things but things we find taboo i.e. Marajuana / homosexuality, we suddenly want laws to impose morality. Govt. just needs to make sure that my life, liberty and property are secure. Let God judge. We should spend our energy loving as He would love.
For the record, I would preffer someone who is HIGH driving over someone who is DRUNK.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:34pmazkenreid,
You may think its a specious and stupid argument, but millions of people like NUTTYVET and myself believ its a damn good argument! I see NO reason to bend to the will of those that have a particular sexual preference. Sexual preferences should be kept private.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »Joseph28
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:15pmSo wait… since when do the feds care what the majority of the people want? i mean we overturned prop 8 not once not twic but trice.
We overturned Arizona’s state law to enforce immigrations laws.
So why should we care what this survey says?
Report Post »TruthTalker
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:25pmEveryone knows, truth told, the average soldier does not want to be in a position of having their junk admired in the showers by their fellow same sex soldier. Period.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:06amHere is denial in full. Did anyone actually read the article posted? It bears repeating:
-The Pentagon survey found that some two-thirds of troops don’t care if the ban is lifted.
-A summary of the report said 69 percent of respondents believed they had already served alongside a gay person. Of those who believed that, 92 percent said their units were able to work together…
Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the absolute top guy in the military) is in favor of getting rid of DADT, as well as the Secretary of Defense. The Pentagon report recommends dropping the DADT policy, as well as the majority of Americans.
I imagine there is the percentage of gays in the army now as there were in WWII and the Civil War. I seriously doubt that anyone secure in their own sexuality gives a whit. If somebody want to fight the bad guy for our country, who cares?
Report Post »TruthTalker
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:24amYou are the one missing the point JZS. Yes they recognize there are gays among them. Have been for many years in the service, They serve with honor. The issue is “openly gay”. What does that mean? For me that means what one gay friend of mine once said. “I joined because there is miles and miles of d**k, and I want some.” That is what is not wanted. A soldier is for the country and honor. A openly “gay” soldier is for something else. Something the rest don’t want. What is their purpose? Why differienciate yourself as “gay”? All we need is soldiers, unless you have a different agenda…..
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:49amFor the record, Prop 8 was overturned because it was unconstitutional and it violates civil rights. You don’t get to violate the civil rights of others by winning a vote. Well, in theory.
Kaen
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:56amJZS…here is what the repeal of DADT gets you:
If gays are allowed to openly serve in the military, they open them selves up to discrimination, being ostricized, and possibly violence. Why then, would they even want to serve openly? The only solution to openly serving gays in the military would be completely segregated military regiments, living quarters, dining facilities…essentially…a completely separate gay military which, would then allow for the regular military to be condemed for being discriminatory, cost outrageous amounts of money to manage, ineffective and nothing more than a failure. Anyone that supports the ban of DADT is a fool to think otherwise. As it stands, gays can and do serve in the military. Many, if not all, serve our country well but, this is and issue better left in the closet.
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:04amGod bless ALL our military, gay, straight, male, female, black, white, latino, asian, christian, jewish, muslim, whatever. These fine people are volunteers and serve with pride. Semper Fi.
Report Post »jimmythebullet
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:29amthey conviently left out the fact that only 30% of those surveyed actually responded.
Report Post »ETOOL USMC RECON
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:41amUnfortunately the majority of the senior officer corps has been infiltrated by the pc, ass kissing, yes men that are more than glad to agree to yet another social experiment…And disaster as this. They have a proctologist on call…….So when bin obama stops walking….One of these fine generals gets his head stuck in oh’s ass.
Report Post »The only exception has been the Marine General that disagreed with this mess (he will be “retired” soon).
A mere two percent of the population that has made the choice to be homosexual should not and cannot make everyone suffer as to have it thrown in our faces.They know it’s wrong and so we have more policies and laws to justify this aborant behavior.
Adam and Eve……Not adam and steve !!!
grandmaof5
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:56amWhat I would be skeptical of would be a survey done by any arm of this administration. Like most of the left’s surveys they probably slant in the direction they want them to go and then are interpreted in the way they want them to turn out. Gates still works for Obama, doesn’t he?
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:59amThey should be listening to the only ones who count regarding DADT; our troops! They are the ones who have to live with the consequences of the decision. We had 6 Army combat medic trainees in our home for Thanksgiving [Operation Thanksgiving, Ft. Sam Houston] and I asked them, 2 female, 4 male, what they thought. They were all opposed to getting rid of it. As one of them said, “We all know who they are. This way we don’t have to talk about it, and they don’t have to deal with the consequences that may result.”
Report Post »Big Bob
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 7:00amI believe that to repeal is to go back to or roll back a certain law. That being said to repeal don‘t ask don’t tell would put an outright ban on homosexuals. I’m all for it!
Report Post »Mornincrapper
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 7:26amNow when your Sgt. tells you we’re going on a 5 mile hump over that hill. Will it have the same meaning?
Report Post »AmericanSoldier
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 7:53am@truthtalker The problem is, it already happens, we just don’t know it. Can ignorance be bliss? Sure. If you allow gays to serve openly, just have similar stipulations as opposite sexes. Keep them separate. Logistically it might be a nightmare at first but new barracks constructions have individual rooms and showers per room. For older buildings you can do what they do with the females, different floors.
Report Post »Major Infidel
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:20am“Of the 30 percent who objected, most of them were in combat units.”
Like it or not, these are the guys that we should accomodate. Why is this so difficult? Whats with gays wanting this so bad anyway? Like theres that many hard charging homos out there.
I say open the Airforce up to them and keep them out of close quarter branches. Airmen are borderline gay already and it’s the most easy going branch to serve under. I think it would be perfect, pink jets and all!
Silly queers just want to wear a cute uniform. The real gay patriots serve quietly with honor.
Oh and lady gaga or whatever her name is, is an aweful performer and ugly as hell. Yuk.
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 9:25amAIPNEWS.com former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmidt gives an honest review of the Pentagon survey. The Law enforcement Examiner article by Jim Kouri for Dec.1 also gives an insightful
Report Post »report. Both contrary to the “already captured Press”- the Pretender and Sodomite President –and
his corrupt administration. Rep.Duncan Hunter(California) is one of the good guys and a former
combat Marine Wish we had more in Congress like him (Now serving in Congress)
ishka4me
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 9:59amI don’t think the Richard simmons type of gay is going to join the Infantry. Sorry just don’t see it. When you get into the support jobs of the military, i think there are plenty of gays, always have been and always will. Much of the military never gets dirty, never does hard labor or ever is involved in group showers.
Report Post »->Click For Brain Enema<-
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 10:12amThis is a military issue and should be left up to military law. You only have the rights the military gives you while your are in service. I am veteran this is how you serve.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 10:15amAll of our armchair generals with complete access to private living quarters and private bathing quarters want DADT. Our politicians want it too. How about they listen to our troops on the ground for a change who don‘t have all those luxuries and DON’T want DADT.
Report Post »Speed Racer
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:55pm@Major Infidel
Obvious troll is obvious.
As for the topic, I’ve known a couple of guys in the military, one in the Navy, and one in the AF that were gay, and it was pretty obvious they were. As for DADT being unconstitutional, I‘ve never really seen or heard anyone say exactly how it’s unconstitutional. There are things you are not allowed to discriminate people for like religion, sex, or race, but sexual preferences and lifestyle choices are not protected, at least not that I know of.
Report Post »JayCee
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 3:17pmPfc. Bradley Manning, the traitor.
Report Post »Who would want to serve with him?
dps7215
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 7:25pmI never got one of these surveys. Good thing, or they would have read quite a bit.
Report Post »I would have to agree with all that are against JZS on all the posts.
As is the case with so many conservatives, we never speak up. Only 30% responding to the survey….doesn’t surprise me. Most probably got the survey….thought about it….and didn’t bother with it, because of the political nonsense.
Liberals (their ilk have joined the military too, mostly in CSS or CS roles) love speaking up about all this stuff. No wonder so many in Finance and what not opened their mouths, they had a chance to take this survey, instead of worrying about who might die next, or what their next mission is.
Lets look at those numbers…. 30%(who actually completed the survey) of 40% is…..12%, meaning more realistically: 88% of combat troops are opposed. If you serve in a combat role, then more than likely you want to be there, and you’re not riding out your time like so many other combat service support soldiers who are trying to figure out what to do with their meaningless lives are. And did you read the questions??? Most people were probably answering like they were afraid to offend anyone, or did not fully understand why the questions were so ambiguous. Geez, where is our moral backbone anymore?
Not only was this survey a crock, but a repeal would be a symbolic stab to what small shred of non-political morality we have left.
To all my Marine friends out there: Semper Fi. To all my fellow Combat Arms Soldiers: Keep the faith all you with at least a part of their souls unstained.
dio
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:26pmI have served with several gay troops. In general, they are indistinguishable from their straight comrades as far as duty performance. Most of us knew and did not give a rat’s ass about it. But, there are significant issues involved in ending DADT.
The point that civilians and members of the more “civilized” branches of the military don’t get is that when “openly” gay service personnel are allowed it means that we have situations where persons who are, or potentially may be, sexually interested in us are in our personal space. And we have to acknowledge this fact.
The Air Force, as an example, have very nice space and privacy requirements for their personnel. Private sleeping and bathing facilities are required. In the Infantry you will be sharing open bathroom facilities, crowded sleeping areas and you will be intimately exposed to your comrades.
It is standard operating procedure to do things like tick checks of your buddy in wooded areas where you are bedding down. That means your buddy looks at your back and backside for ticks, because you can’t see there. Because of concerns about sexual harassment and common decency, that means your buddy is of the same sex as you. There are many similar activities which are required and are gender separated for the same reason.
How would you like to be forced to share a shower area, with no separate stalls or curtains, with a person of the opposite sex as a condition of employment? Same for latrines? Bedding areas? The point is that, even if you suspect a soldier is gay, if that fact is in question you can deal with the forced intimacy. If you know for a fact that you are an object of sexual interest, things get real uncomfortable real fast.
DADT is not just a matter of changing policy and forgetting about it. A change in the policy will require a change in the way we do business and that will require a sober and thoughtful approach. If DADT is just changed without proper review and accommodation you can be sure that the number of sexual harassment complaints and incidents are going to seriously impact readiness states.
Like most things, DADT is not a simple black and white issue. Sorry to dash anyones illusions as to how things work in the real world.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 2:52pmHere we go again.
Yes, the poll found that a majority of those in the military said they don’t think it would be a big deal. HOWEVER, THOSE THAT SERVE IN COMBAT LIKE MARINES. You know, the ones that put their lives on the line at the tip of the spear, they do NOT like the idea. And, anyone that is willing to think clearly and actually care about ALL the lives of our military members would honestly understand. If not, then you are just being selfish and putting fellow Americans lives in danger!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:00pm2,
My Mother was a Girl-Scout Troop leader and I made sure I got to go to every meeting and camp-out or whatever because, I being a red-blooded American male, knew that I would be the only guy in a group of girls. Even at a young age I knew about playing the odds.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 3:10pmjimmythebullet,
Thank you!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »