- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON – The military's top uniformed officer on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the Defense Department's yearlong study into how the ban can be repealed without causing a major upheaval in the military.
I don't know how many times I have heard the expression "Let's let the generals decide this issue". Well, the top general (actually, an admiral - same thing), has spoken. He is not only an Admiral, but is CHAIRMAN of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Will I now hear "Let's let generals other than the ones who disagree with me decide the issue"? Or will I hear "Let's let some random privates decide the issue, as long as they don't disagree with me"? Or possibly "Let's get an opinion from military cooks, as long as they don't disagree with me"?
Here is the way I see it -
1) If someone wants to defend the United States against its enemies, I don't care if he or she is gay, or straight, or whatever. Besides, his or her sexual orientation is none of my damn business, unless he or she is disrupting other troops by hitting on them. There are rules for that already in the military for straights. They will apply to gays too.
2) If gays serve in the military, I will also thank them for their service, because I love my country, and I know they do too.
To those who don't like the idea of gays serving in the military, you might as well prepare to accept it. It is going to happen sooner or later, and it is going to be a benefit to our military, rather than a liability.
Article is here.
I don't know how many times I have heard the expression "Let's let the generals decide this issue". Well, the top general (actually, an admiral - same thing), has spoken. He is not only an Admiral, but is CHAIRMAN of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Will I now hear "Let's let generals other than the ones who disagree with me decide the issue"? Or will I hear "Let's let some random privates decide the issue, as long as they don't disagree with me"? Or possibly "Let's get an opinion from military cooks, as long as they don't disagree with me"?
Here is the way I see it -
1) If someone wants to defend the United States against its enemies, I don't care if he or she is gay, or straight, or whatever. Besides, his or her sexual orientation is none of my damn business, unless he or she is disrupting other troops by hitting on them. There are rules for that already in the military for straights. They will apply to gays too.
2) If gays serve in the military, I will also thank them for their service, because I love my country, and I know they do too.
To those who don't like the idea of gays serving in the military, you might as well prepare to accept it. It is going to happen sooner or later, and it is going to be a benefit to our military, rather than a liability.
Article is here.
Let the enlisted people aboard ship decide........Mullin is clueless......He does not have the same hardship and E1 thru E6 has.........He has his own stateroom and shower.............Not the same for enlisted personnel..
Cannot believe the side of the equation who are obsessed with the 2nd Amendment would disallow a man to protect his nation.
Let the enlisted people aboard ship decide........Mullin is clueless......He does not have the same hardship and E1 thru E6 has.........He has his own stateroom and shower.............Not the same for enlisted personnel..
Like I said, did you see the reaction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Obama made that statement?
Let the enlisted people aboard ship decide........Mullin is clueless......He does not have the same hardship and E1 thru E6 has.........He has his own stateroom and shower.............Not the same for enlisted personnel..
Don't worry it seems that from my experience most gay men have an excellent sense of humour. If anything I would be more concerned that guy soldiers would up the anty on crude homosexual humour. Gay guys, seem to love making references to penises, arses and semen (or is it seamen? :mrgreen.
I have no problems with gays being allowed to serve openly as long as they get no special treatment. Which is how it was supposed to be with women but that is not exactly the way it happend. The biggest problem I see with gays being in is that gay jokes are a pretty common past time with soldiers, with combat arms guys atleast. I mean think of all the slang that is used such as co&^holster for your mouth and I coudnt even count how many times I have called and been called dudes on my team fags or homos. I woud just hate to see tons of new harrassment cases poping up. Right or wrong what that does is distract the Army from fighting and training to fight wars. As long as gays are willing to be thick skinned like all the other combat arms guys need to be that I welcome them.
Porchev;1058530492[B said:]If opposite sex attraction challenged people are openly allowed in the military, I think there should be some changes in the lodging set-up. Everyone should get their own room when able. [/B]
Additionally some other rules should be changed: right now in some bases in southwest Asia, where thousands of military people are there on temporary duty assignments, it is basically a crime for a man to be in a woman’s room or vice versa. This is to prevent potential sexual relations from occurring, however, for opposite sex attraction challenged people there are no such restrictions.
Its "Lets let the generals decide"....until the generals decide something that we don't like...then lets let someone else decide. :doh
Enlisted serviceman's job is not to make decisions about the Military as a whole, their job is to do what is asked of them.
Of all people who should be mistaken of military roles...
Well, gee. You weren't slamming him like this before when you posted this:
Post number 180 in this thread. So, tell me, do you think the reaction of the joint chiefs at the Obama speech is still what you thought it was? Or do you believe they are not now worth using to prop up your argument, when you clearly used them to prop up your argument before today? Or could it be that they can only be used to prop up your arguments as long as they appear to be on your side during a discussion, and conveniently discarded when they don't? It appears you want it both ways here.
I hate to burst your bubble for all you "Feel good libs" that want DADT overturned but DADT won't be settled for a couple years and even with all the dems in the congress today they are way short of the votes needed to overturn it and by November it will be much worse because according to polls the GOP is expected to pick up a bunch of seats in the congress........I just heard this on CBS news hardly a bastion for conservative issues.............
Yeah. And while we're at it, let's let servicemen decide whether they can join segregated or integrated military units.
/s
Enlisted people make decisins all the time........They are the ones the policy affects....they should have a say in it................
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?