Posted on 12/17/2010 11:21:22 PM PST by Daryl L.Hunter
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, I think my graphic tells the story.
I grew up in a college town, San Luis Obispo CA, there was an active gay student union at Cal Poly in the early seventies and I knew lots of gays and accepted them. My best friend Barry, his brother was gay, and he shared a party house with Barry and it was a hangout all his gay friends. They were hilarious to watch, boys acting like girls and sounding like girls. There wasn’t a gram of testosterone between the whole group.
Unlike many conservatives, because of my early contact with the gays of my hometown I concluded that these guys were born way to effeminate to be 100% man. I believe most come by it honestly, and there is nothing they can do about it. That said, I wouldn’t want anyone that effeminate acing out a position in my platoon from a red blooded Iowa farm boy.
I am no anthropologist, but I have lived my anecdotal evidence and have drawn my own conclusions, as have many servicemen. Battle is for the macho and the macho fighting our battle need faith in the ranks of their platoon. Faith allegiance, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credulity, dependence, loyalty, reliance, could all be in doubt by platoon member who doesn’t measure up measure up 100% on the man scale.
Is my position and the position of millions of others against gays in the military fact or perception? It doesn’t matter; our perception is the faith that we put on our unit members watching our backside and faith is too important to squander.
The chiefs of the Army, Marines and Air Force warned that implementing a repeal of the policy banning gays from serving openly in the military would be more difficult than a Pentagon study has suggested, challenging the assessments of other top military officials in the administration. Gen. James Amos, the Marine commandant, offered the most critical comments in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee and recommended against a repeal at this time. He said the Marines would carry out a change in policy if Congress votes for it but said the shift has a "strong potential for disruption at the small-unit level."
"(A repeal) will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat," Amos said. "We asked for their opinions, and they gave them to us."
Nearly seven of every ten Marines in combat roles say repealing the policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly would harm their unit's effectiveness, more than any other branch of the armed forces, according to a long-awaited Pentagon survey. Forty-four percent of all service members said unit effectiveness would be harmed by its repeal; among the Marines whose jobs are on the front lines that number rose to 67 percent.
The Marine Corps' resistance has come from the top down. Former Commandant Gen. James Conway was a staunch opponent, and his successor, Gen. James Amos, says he believes it could be disruptive to troops at war in Afghanistan.
Our military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is friendship, comradeship, brotherly love, trust and faith. The bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.
If gays wanted to serve in non-battlefield positions, I would bet there could be an argument make for that.
It dumbfounds me that so many are willing to play politics in an arena as important as the one that protects our country.
Our Combat Arms must be the smartest, meanest, toughest and most lethal sonsabitches on the block. Enough said.
BARRY sotero? Larry Sinclair swears he had homosex with odumbi back in 1999.
This is simple: Our culture has been feminized to the point where many (a majority? see obastard’s election) have no clue what it takes to be in life or death combat. Hence this idiocy, gun control, etc. Short version: when your life is at risk, you fight for the other people there with you. If you are wondering if they are less than masculine (ie, gay) or want to #### you, then how the Hell can you do that?!
The real problem: The emasculation of our culture. Examples abound. The inevitable result? Short version again: emasculated cultures get slaughtered.
Oh and to be clear: This isn’t misogynistic. I had a woman friend who was 105 lbs soaking wet. But she was a marine. A campus area rapist made the mistake of breaking into her place. There was a lot of blood. None hers.
The point: When the sh!t went down, she manned up. But males who are by genetics or choice self-emasculated? Sorry, I’d rather have my marine buddy with me.
PS Yes, she was smoking hot.
Sorry, Marine should have been capitalized.
while I am against DADT, let me advise my fellow Freepers, being gay is no guarantee that someone isn’t lethal....being from NY, I was exposed to many, many gay guys throughout my days in show business, and some of those cats, who would never impose their sexual tastes on anyone, can be pretty nasty fellows....you betcha’ damn dangerous, indeed.
I guess I'm just a dumb girl, but, what is "serving openly"? Do they want to hold hands while they march, share a bunk or wear lipstick? Is it their desire to be introduced as gay Lieutenant Kennedy? What is it?
I figure they want the benefits for their “spouses”, the college paid for and the ability to sexually harrass others, while suing for discrimination and harassment liberally.
... by masculine-oriented male homosexuals who hid their sexual proclivities from the public.
‘Hid’ being the operative word, such as in DADT.
How about new uniforms???
Congress may dictate who has to be allowed into the military, but they do not make up the distribution of the troops. They can segregate the troops based on “tests” that determine their best “usage”. They are psycologically fit to serve here and not there. Put them all in one place and let them frolic all they want and leave the rest of the military alone. Those who are serious military will continue with DADT and things will go on as they are now.
Going through battle though might change some things in the biochemistry. Might cure some things. No excuse for allowing it at all. I’m just saying, wouldn’t it be ironic if Sarah Palin put a medal on a ‘former’ gay who changed in war? Good movie script anyway.
Doesn't dumbfound me at all.
Those who are willing to play politics in an arena as important as the one that protects our country do so precisely because because it's the one that protects our country.
They want to destroy this country; make no mistake about that.
Exactly and although Wizards statement above is true, it is perception and confidence we are talking about.
You have seen Obama throw a baseball, I don't think many of us would want to depend on him throwing a granade :D
The Thing is, Gays have been serving in the Military Forever,the problem will arise now they will be allowed to prance around openly and that will lead to the Obvious problems,that is their intention ,arguing all these facts has NOTHING to do with it. Like Obamacare has nothing to do with Healthcare
Our so called representatives are selling the Country domn the River for Power ,Money and Influence ,Case has been closed on that for decades and Decades,we are Playing out the string and it is incredibly short
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.