Most Marines against lifting DADT

[Ned Racine]

And you know it also affects me, and every other LGBT American citizen, and also affects every American taxpayer who pays into the military.

No , most of the time it doesn't. DADT is far from perfect but still it was fairer to decent individuals than what existed before it.

I would dare say that Most Gays in the US most of the time are not thinking in terms of those presently serving or of National Defense in general . The interest in things Military or defense related peaks when Gay related subjects arise. Most of the time MOST could not care less about GTMO, Guam, Diego Garcia, Rota, Spain, Rhein Mein etc.

Most could not care less if most in Uniform were eating Filet Mignon or Spam or had good housing or domiciles over run by maggots.

 

[cpwill]

Are you still referring to the outdated poll and the faulty conclusions?

1. i simply clicked on the first link discussing the poll. if you like to access the 2009 poll instead of th 2008 poll, it says pretty much the exact same thing.

2. the claim that that poll is faulty seemed to be based largely on the assumption that people will not do what they say they will do. a fine claim, to be sure, but let's not pretend to grace it with any kind of science or ability to delegitimize the thrust of the poll.

3. the reason that poll is funny with regards to this thread...

is that the navy polled in favor of repealing DADT.

:lol: poor Navy Pride

 

[Patria Antiqua]

actually i'm fine with allowing homosexuals to serve, i think DADT is a good compromise.

it seems to us that ya'll often don't seem to care about the negative consequences of repealing DADT; some recognition that at the very least we are talking about trade-offs here would be quite welcome.

What trade offs? If you want to avoid hiring people who have a deleterious effect on our armed forces, then stop recruiting homophobes.

Every citizen has an equal right to serve, given they're fit to do so. There is no negotiation here. Those already enlisted have no right whatsoever to dictate who can and cannot join their ranks.

 

[cpwill]

What trade offs?

decreased good order and discipline and combat effectiveness, to mention the first two that come to mind.

If you want to avoid hiring people who have a deleterious effect on our armed forces, then stop recruiting homophobes.

incorrect, the military does not exist to be a politically correct organization designed to make people feel good about themselves; it exists to provide the legitimate threat (which is occasionally exercised) of a force that is very, very good at breaking things and killing people. recruitment should be with the latter in mind, not the former. racists, for example, are allowed to enlist, as are sexists. they are simply forbidden by the UCMJ of translating those biases into official action.

Every citizen has an equal right to serve, given they're fit to do so.

wrong. being hired by the DOD is not a 'right'.

 

[Redress]

actually i'm fine with allowing homosexuals to serve, i think DADT is a good compromise.

it seems to us that ya'll often don't seem to care about the negative consequences of repealing DADT; some recognition that at the very least we are talking about trade-offs here would be quite welcome.

Oh bull****. When you cannot win a debate, you have to resort to crap like this, painting your opponents as bad people. The truth is, we care about the military as much or probably more than you do, we just don't think your hysterics are at all warranted or born out by any evidence.

 

[Redress]

1. i simply clicked on the first link discussing the poll. if you like to access the 2009 poll instead of th 2008 poll, it says pretty much the exact same thing.

2. the claim that that poll is faulty seemed to be based largely on the assumption that people will not do what they say they will do. a fine claim, to be sure, but let's not pretend to grace it with any kind of science or ability to delegitimize the thrust of the poll.

3. the reason that poll is funny with regards to this thread...

is that the navy polled in favor of repealing DADT.

:lol: poor Navy Pride

And again, you are misrepresenting the other side of the debate. The reason the results have no credence is in similar situations, the predictions made by similar polls did not actually come to pass. That is solid evidence. You cannot ignore how integrating gays in the militaries of other countries worked out, and that evidence all points to it being an, if not painless, only a minor problem.

Now I know, actual honesty in debate is hard, but it does help.

 

[Redress]

decreased good order and discipline and combat effectiveness, to mention the first two that come to mind.

There is a total of zero evidence this will be a significant problem. Further, the pentagon is finishing a one year study(results due Dec 1) on how to avoid even the less than significant problems.

incorrect, the military does not exist to be a politically correct organization designed to make people feel good about themselves; it exists to provide the legitimate threat (which is occasionally exercised) of a force that is very, very good at breaking things and killing people. recruitment should be with the latter in mind, not the former. racists, for example, are allowed to enlist, as are sexists. they are simply forbidden by the UCMJ of translating those biases into official action.

Wow, you just showed how this would not be a problem. Thank you.

wrong. being hired by the DOD is not a 'right'.

Enlisting, while having some similarities to hiring, is not being hired.

 

[cpwill]

Oh bull****. When you cannot win a debate, you have to resort to crap like this, painting your opponents as bad people

not wishing to recognize the negative consequences of your preferred policies doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you human. we prefer to ignore the trade-offs of the actions we want to take. how many times did you see liberals in congress admit that Obamacare would slowly destroy health insurance as we know it during the Obamacare debate? how many times did you see the conservatives admit that moving to a more market-oriented approach would leave some poor people in the lurch?

The truth is, we care about the military as much or probably more than you do, we just don't think your hysterics are at all warranted or born out by any evidence.

i don't know if you care as much or more than I do, i can't see your heart. and i'm not engaging in any hysterics, i'm discussing reality as i've seen it, having been an active-duty Marine for the past 5 years or so.

 

[cpwill]

There is a total of zero evidence this will be a significant problem.

actually there is alot of evidence that this will be a significant problem; and one need only to peruse the legal histories of mixed gender v single gender units to draw it out. i've been a member of both; and have seen this live. introducing sexual tension into a unit lowers it's good order and discipline and combat effectiveness.

Further, the pentagon is finishing a one year study(results due Dec 1) on how to avoid even the less than significant problems.

the study isn't how to avoid them, it's what steps we can take to mitigate them. how do you handle housing, for example. one of the unspoken consequences that hasn't been discussed much is that you have to significantly increase the chain of commands' oversight over the sexual activities of it's homosexual members, to match it's current oversight of its heterosexual members. are homosexual males to serve in all-male units such as combat units, which can least afford the problems that come with introducing sexual tension?

Wow, you just showed how this would not be a problem. Thank you.

abuses (beating PFC Smith because he's gay) would be a problem, however, the chain of command would crack down immediately and crack down hard on it, in order to keep it from becoming a trend, the way that hazing was/is. about one of the fastest ways that you can get Everything To Stop in the CONUS-side military today is to launch an Equal Opportunity complaint. So i would see that particular problem being generally limited in scope.

Enlisting, while having some similarities to hiring, is not being hired.

um, yes, it is. specifically you are joining (being hired by) a particular branch of the military. and it is not a right, nor is even finishing out your contract a 'right'. the military discriminates against all manner of folks whom it considers to be detrimental to combat efficiency; whether it be athsmatics, those who are too short, too tall, too fat, done too many drugs, not scored high enough on the ASVAB... if you wish to get into sexuality, Adultery is illegal in the military, and yes, they can kick you out for it.

there is no such thing as a right to join/behiredby the military

 

[CriticalThought]

cpwill, the fact is that any policy they decide will only be for openly gay soldiers. Very few soldiers will probably be coming out of the closet once the DADT policy is repealed because they won't want to be separated from their unit. The benefit of repealing the policy is that if they do come out or they are outed, they won't be kicked out of the military, but most will probably continue to serve quietly and discretely.

 

[Redress]

not wishing to recognize the negative consequences of your preferred policies doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you human. we prefer to ignore the trade-offs of the actions we want to take. how many times did you see liberals in congress admit that Obamacare would slowly destroy health insurance as we know it during the Obamacare debate? how many times did you see the conservatives admit that moving to a more market-oriented approach would leave some poor people in the lurch?

Again you make this claim we are ignoring the negative consequences, which is, again, false. Almost no one is saying the transition will be 100 % painless, only that it is not going to create any significant problems overall. The military will survive, and in fact thrive, and will be better for the change. You are very much spinning the position of those you disagree with.

i don't know if you care as much or more than I do, i can't see your heart. and i'm not engaging in any hysterics, i'm discussing reality as i've seen it, having been an active-duty Marine for the past 5 years or so.

And the problem with that is what you are seeing is the small scale, and not the large. Further, saying we somehow care less is hysterics, is a lie, and is a rather vile slander. I am a vet, I do volunteer work for vets, I care deeply for our military and those who have served. Trying to paint me as caring less than you about the military is not an argument, only a slander.

 

[Redress]

actually there is alot of evidence that this will be a significant problem; and one need only to peruse the legal histories of mixed gender v single gender units to draw it out. i've been a member of both; and have seen this live. introducing sexual tension into a unit lowers it's good order and discipline and combat effectiveness.

While there are some similarities, there are also some differences. The most direct comparison is with the military in other countries that have integrated gays. Israel allows gays to serve, and have one of, if not the most effective per soldier militaries in the world as just one example. The evidence that looking at the experiences of other countries is that the problems, while there, are not that large. Further, we have all that experience, both with integration of races and sexes, and the experiences of those other countries to draw on to guide us in the change.

the study isn't how to avoid them, it's what steps we can take to mitigate them. how do you handle housing, for example. one of the unspoken consequences that hasn't been discussed much is that you have to significantly increase the chain of commands' oversight over the sexual activities of it's homosexual members, to match it's current oversight of its heterosexual members. are homosexual males to serve in all-male units such as combat units, which can least afford the problems that come with introducing sexual tension?

Actually, the study is how to avoid what can be avoided, and deal with what has to be dealt with, and how to keep the military at peak efficiency when the change happens. Despite all the specters of horrid problems with gays and straits together, none of those problems are really that large, and mostly handled by the civilian world with little to no trouble.

abuses (beating PFC Smith because he's gay) would be a problem, however, the chain of command would crack down immediately and crack down hard on it, in order to keep it from becoming a trend, the way that hazing was/is. about one of the fastest ways that you can get Everything To Stop in the CONUS-side military today is to launch an Equal Opportunity complaint. So i would see that particular problem being generally limited in scope.

Your example is already a "problem"(read the court decision that has resulted in a stay of all discharges under DADT now, there are a couple stories presented to the court on the topic of gays being abused). However, it is not widespread, nor is it a significant determent to readiness. When I say something is "not a problem" in reference to this, it is at the macro level. Idiots manage to create problems, and every regulation has people who cannot handle it(see drug usage, which was much more prevalent than gays ever will be when I served, and while the rules where simple, people still could not handle them). Almost all of these problems can be handled at the command level, and will not degrade readiness.

um, yes, it is. specifically you are joining (being hired by) a particular branch of the military. and it is not a right, nor is even finishing out your contract a 'right'. the military discriminates against all manner of folks whom it considers to be detrimental to combat efficiency; whether it be athsmatics, those who are too short, too tall, too fat, done too many drugs, not scored high enough on the ASVAB... if you wish to get into sexuality, Adultery is illegal in the military, and yes, they can kick you out for it.

there is no such thing as a right to join/behiredby the military

Talk about this part when I get back from going shopping with my mom, who just pulled in. Have a nice day.

 

[cpwill]

cpwill, the fact is that any policy they decide will only be for openly gay soldiers. Very few soldiers will probably be coming out of the closet once the DADT policy is repealed because they won't want to be separated from their unit. The benefit of repealing the policy is that if they do come out or they are outed, they won't be kicked out of the military, but most will probably continue to serve quietly and discretely.

i have no idea as to the percentage that would or would not come out; polling such a thing is obviously nigh impossible, and you of course would be required by the logic you posted above to decry it's effectiveness anyway.

what makes you think that coming out would result in homosexual members of the military being separated from their unit?

 

[cpwill]

Again you make this claim we are ignoring the negative consequences, which is, again, false.

no, it isn't. whenever you introduce or raise sexual tension within an organization as tight-knit as a military unit, you are creating negative consequences. the question is whether the positives outweight the negatives.

Almost no one is saying the transition will be 100 % painless, only that it is not going to create any significant problems overall

alright. describe for me what kind of pain you think it will bring.

The military will survive, and in fact thrive, and will be better for the change.

that we will survive is agreed, that we will thrive is only a point of minor contention; we are the US military, we will continue to dominate. that we will be better for the change is a highly-contested matter of opinion.

You are very much spinning the position of those you disagree with.

again, if i saw more recognition out of ya'll that this is a decision with trade-offs in both directions, i wouldn't state that i believe ya'll are refusing to acknowledge them.

And the problem with that is what you are seeing is the small scale, and not the large.

wrong, i am merely seeing both. surely you have no better access to the large scale than I do, and i sincerely doubt that either of us has the same access that the Commandant has. you want to talk large scale? read the OP. I am aware of the theoretical issues of introducing sexual tensions into units, and i have witnessed the accuracy of that theory on multiple occasions. logic plus verification.

Further, saying we somehow care less is hysterics, is a lie, and is a rather vile slander.

some obviously do. brushing every member of the movement with that stroke is of course incorrect; however, again, i see one side talking about combat efficiency and the mechanics of how the military is actually run and i see another side focusing in on individual rights and sob-stories. it's the military; we are not about the individual, our focus is the team. as a trend, it seems to me that the homosexual advocacy movement is willing to prioritize their desire to serve openly over the military's desire to function optimally. i see the same thing from the "let women serve in the infantry" crowd.

I am a vet, I do volunteer work for vets, I care deeply for our military and those who have served. Trying to paint me as caring less than you about the military is not an argument, only a slander.

have i ever done so?

 

[cpwill]

Talk about this part when I get back from going shopping with my mom, who just pulled in. Have a nice day.

then i will wait until you are finished so that we can address it all at once and not get into that stupid wait-which-part-are-we-responding-to-here game.

have a good time .

 

[Le Marteau]

This info from the Commandent of the Marine Corps:


President Obama considers fast appeal of judge's order allowing gays to serve openly in the military | masslive.com



The incoming Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, and his predecessor, Gen. James Conway, both have told Congress that they think most Marines would be uncomfortable with the change and that the current policy works.


EarthLink - Top News

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of "enormous consequences" for troops if the court order is allowed to stand, saying the decision on repeal of the law known as "don't ask, don't tell" should be decided by Congress and not the courts.


As much as you Liberals want it to be this issue is far from a done deal..............I pray rational minds will finally prevail............

This is only further proof that the USMC is being filled with the filth of your society -- it proves nothing to rational, intelligent people in society.

 

[CriticalThought]

i have no idea as to the percentage that would or would not come out; polling such a thing is obviously nigh impossible, and you of course would be required by the logic you posted above to decry it's effectiveness anyway.

what makes you think that coming out would result in homosexual members of the military being separated from their unit?

It's a simple fact. If the military initiates separate housing and showering policies for openly gay soldiers, then that in turn separates them from their unit. It is an act of segregation. I can imagine that most gay people would want to fit in with their fellow soldiers rather than be segregated and so they will simply not tell anyone of their sexual orientation.

And it is measurable, because the same thing has happened in Canada and just about every other nation that has allowed openly gay soldiers to serve. People get all heated up about how all the gays are going to come out and all the poor soldiers will be super uncomfortable, when in reality, nothing really changes. Soldiers keep their sexual orientation to themselves and only tell people they trust in confidence about it. As such, it becomes a complete nonissue. If soldiers find out someone they served with is gay, then it is probably someone they have already shared housing or showers with without any incident and as long as that person can do their job, they could care less.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

no, it isn't. whenever you introduce or raise sexual tension within an organization as tight-knit as a military unit, you are creating negative consequences. the question is whether the positives outweight the negatives.

I thought fraternization was already against the regs. That I'm all for the military's position on.

 

[Ned Racine]

This is only further proof that the USMC is being filled with the filth of your society -- it proves nothing to rational, intelligent people in society.

My nominee for the most Anti american entry possibly ever on this board.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Being anti-Marines =/= being anti-American.

While you're telling us all about Le Marteau, could you explain the second part of what they said, about it proving nothing?

TED,
Didn't understand that at all.

 

[Ned Racine]

Being anti-Marines =/= being anti-American.

While you're telling us all about Le Marteau, could you explain the second part of what they said, about it proving nothing?

TED,
Didn't understand that at all.

Do YOU think someone with such vehemence against the Corps is possibly Pro American(???) I'd like to see such an individual.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Yeah, I think it's possible, since the Corps isn't America. Simple logic, try it sometime.

So I guess you didn't know WTF they were talking about either, huh? :lol:

 

[Le Marteau]

Do YOU think someone with such vehemence against the Corps is possibly Pro American(???) I'd like to see such an individual.

Well, I'm not pro-American. But I'm not anti-American either.

I'm simply not American. I'm pro-France, pro-Britain, and pro-Russia. I've lived in all three, and I've served in the French Foreign Legion and the Royal Marines. I work for the Labour government of the UK. Don't mistake my views, which are aimed at the betterment of the countries I have named, as anti-American -- they're simply uncaring of America one way or the other.

Furthermore, I've had extensive dealings with the USMC -- and it is my opinion that the USMC is largely quite unprofessional.

The American Navy? Quite professional, I've great respect for them. The American Air Force? Similar view. But the Army and the Marines both strike me as rather unimpressive and poorly trained.

 

[Ned Racine]

Well, I'm not pro-American. But I'm not anti-American either.

I'm simply not American. I'm pro-France, pro-Britain, and pro-Russia. I've lived in all three, and I've served in the French Foreign Legion and the Royal Marines. I work for the Labour government of the UK. Don't mistake my views, which are aimed at the betterment of the countries I have named, as anti-American -- they're simply uncaring of America one way or the other.

Furthermore, I've had extensive dealings with the USMC -- and it is my opinion that the USMC is largely quite unprofessional.

The American Navy? Quite professional, I've great respect for them. The American Air Force? Similar view. But the Army and the Marines both strike me as rather unimpressive and poorly trained.

Still - You never quite explain WHY that Hammer & Sickle is of such importance to you .

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

You know, the bull**** fear of communists that permeates so many threads around here is enough to make me want to flash the hammer and sickle.

Just to screw with the scaremongers.