Skip to comments.MILITARY: Marines lead opposition to repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'
Posted on 11/30/2010 6:00:21 PM PST by 444Flyer
Nearly seven out of every 10 combat Marines oppose repealing the policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from being allowed to serve openly, according to a long-awaited Pentagon survey released Tuesday morning.
Forty-four percent of all service members say their units' effectiveness would be negatively impacted by the repeal; among Marines, that number rose to 67 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at nctimes.com ...
Gaytes stated numbers in the polling are *suspicious* to say the least.
The pink mafia is out to destroy the American military.
“Marines Chief Warns Most Are Uncomfortable Serving With Openly Gay Troops”
The marines appear to hold a monopoly on guts in the military.
Repealing DADT would mean the end of the US Marines as the world’s best fighting force - all to accommodate 3% of the population who think that the number one issue in their life is being able to push their sexuality in someone else’s face.
Well there is a surprise.
The concept of homosexuals in the military is a ruse. They are presently able to serve in any and all ways as is anyone else. What they want is a “special recognition” of thier sexual proclivities.
They want the rest of the military to see them as “specifically homosexual” troops, in the same way that NY does it’s “gay” cops. They then will become a point of specific division in our military force.
The military got rid of all such distinctions when it got rid of the laws separating blacks and whites in military. When they ceased to give distinction to female service members as WMs WACs, WAVs etc.
Now all members of the military are equal. The homosexual is the same as anyone who is there to serve, unless he or she wants to make a specific issue of their sexual practices.
There is no “gay” identity other than that based on what a person does with their sex organs. Say no to special rights and special exceptions for homosexuals.
Well obviously Obama needs to make the Marines spend more time in “Sensitivity Classes” and less times learing how to kill people and break things...... /sarc
I’m trusting our Marines to take care of any problems that are thrust upon them (no pun intended!) in the field.
If you know what I mean. And I think you do.
It can be really dangerous on that battlefield. Lots of ways to get killed. Especially if you get too far ahead of your team.
And — think about it — the fags will be encouraged to position themselves ahead of the others, because after all, you don’t want them BEHIND you...
I’d go even further: the rest of the military should adopt the marines policy on coed training
They may save us from this liberal idiocy yet. It wouldn't be the first time that they won a battle that the Army, Navy, and Air Force could not or would not win.
“Repealing DADT would mean the end of the US Marines as the worlds best fighting force - all to accommodate 3% of the population who think that the number one issue in their life is being able to push their sexuality in someone elses face.”
“Marines of Conscience or Homosexual Marines”
(snip)”...Service in the U. S. Marine Corps requires the loss of many liberties that civilians enjoy; especially, the right of association. Individual Marines cannot choose their leaders or with whom they will work and live. It is beyond governmental authority to force these Americans into situations that compromise their morals. The Selective Training & Service Act of 1940 permits the granting of Conscientious Objector status to One who by reason of religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war. Little known is: People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 143, Conscientious Scruple. A conscientious scruple against . . . doing military duty, or the like is an objection or repugnance growing out of the fact that the person believes the thing demanded of him is morally wrong, his conscience being the sole guide to his decision . . . (Black’s Law Dictionary). This Conscientious Scruple provision appears to give Marines of conscience a legal remedy for a morally compromising situation of serving under or with Marine homosexuals. Moreover, since there are evidently more persons of conscience in our society than homosexuals, the pool of potential recruits for the current all-volunteer Marine Corps will be reduced.
A question which now begs answering is: “How would replacing Marines of conscience with homosexual Marines enhance a Marine units combat efficiency? Rather than enhancing combat efficiency, the opposite would be the result. In large part, the degree of a Marine units combat efficiency parallels its degree of unit cohesion. As the term implies, unit cohesion is a function of the emotional closeness of the units members who are drawn together by both social and military common grounds. There are at least three areas by which homosexual Marines would be drawbacks to such cohesion:
1) The social barracks talk of Marines is dominated by the object of their sexuality as is their after work pursuits—heterosexuality and homosexuality are, by their natures, mutually exclusive and therefore would create non-cohesive groups;
2) Marines of consciences and other heterosexual Marines who fail to include homosexual Marines in those activities would be practicing, by definition, sexual discrimination and, potentially, would be susceptible to prosecution under military law. That potential susceptibility would sow apprehension throughout the unit;
3) The 2010 Defense Budget was signed into law containing an attachment adding homosexuals to the Federal Hate Crimes Law. As a result, any Marine who expresses revulsion over homosexual acts will be susceptible to prosecution by Court Martial. Also, the federal statute allows for training and prevention programs. This last provision will probably result in forced indoctrination classes in Marine units that would challenge the religious convictions of Marines of conscience and their Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion prompting virulent reactions from Marines of conscience and palpable tension in Marine units.
In creating tension and apprehension between Marines, unit cohesion is degraded and, by extension, so is unit combat efficiency: the relationship between the facility in combat mission accomplishment and cost in friendly casualties...”
Every single person I've asked about this, active duty, retired, and reserves is against openly gay people serving. End of story.
Training accident? Or merely some remedial encouragement at getting squared-away by their fellow Marines? Tough call, don't know which way I'd go...
“Don’t Repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”
“~Don’t sacrifice unit cohesion for a social experiment.~”
“..Both issueswomen in combat and gays in the militaryare different manifestations of a single problem: the failure of Americas political leadership to understand the factors that motivate men to fight in battle and to continue fighting under the most horrific conditionswhat professionals call combat effectiveness and unit cohesion respectively. In all the discussions of the issue, these terms seldom come up; when they do, it is only to be dismissed out of hand by those who wish to see all military positions opened to both women and homosexuals.
Those who have never served in combat have no idea what it is like...”
Every single person I've asked about this, active duty, retired, and reserves is against openly gay people serving. End of story."
Same here. I smell B.S. all over the polling numbers Gaytes is using.
The ONLY reason we can post on this blog, as free men, is because of the brave men and women of the USMC. If they say
it’s a bad idea. That’s good enough for me.
Thanks to the service members of the other branches too.
The marines appear to hold a monopoly on guts in the military.
If Gaytes and the administration wants homos in the military so badly, make an exception for the Marine Corps. At least real men and women of conscience have a choice not to serve among the mentally disturbed.
Good luck to the other sister services, but they didn’t come out strong enough in opposition: and there are consequences for that.
“THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% OF SERVICE MEMBERS REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS - 1 IN 4 WOULD QUIT”
Hi, 444! This whole thing can be summed up in two words...Bradley Manning.
No reason beyond that and what he did in a snit against his rejection by his “boyfriend” could better serve to illustrate the damgers of overly emotional and mentally/hormonally unbalanced “soldiers” present to this country and our fighting forces.
When I first saw this so-called “report,” every red flag I possess went up and so did my hackles. To force this “policy” on my beloved Corp makes me sick to my stomach.
DADT is at least performance based and if a Marine gets openly hit on, they DO hit back because I have seen it and the result is not pretty. Nor should it be.
If they repeal it, it will be open season on fighting men and officers because I can hear the cries of homophobia being used in every situation where these b@stiches feel put upon. And they will use any excuse they can find to diminish all the rules in place ro suit their agenda.
They will advance in the officer Corp because we can expect “affirmative action” especially for gays. Now what happens when a straight Marine is hit on by an officer and hits back? It is untenable.
Even in today's high-tech medical environment, blood that has been properly screened doesn't always find its way to field hospitals. From what I understand, even in the relatively low-intensity fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, from time to time those forward deployed troops still have to roll up their sleeves and give blood for their wounded buddies. In a high intensity war, like what we could face any time now on the Korean Peninsula or in the future with China/Russia, it would be a given that blood would literally be drawn out of one arm and go into another.
So what happens when we have openly serving homos, who are today and always have been the biggest carriers of AIDS, roll up their sleeves to have their infected blood drawn to "save" the life of wounded soldiers? Not only would our young men and women have been wounded, and possibly horribly maimed by the enemy, but suddenly could find themselves having contracted AIDS from infected homo blood.
What's the alternative? Leave the homos in the rear (pun intended) when the unit deploys? That's a great idea...send units into combat undermanned and combat ineffective. /sarc
No, any sane and rational person knows what the answer is...NO HOMOS IN THE MILITARY, PERIOD!!!! Find them, and put them out ASAP, while we still have an effective and cohesive military defending us.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Maybe Gaytes could plan on having Manning, post trial, do the new proposed sensitivity training that will be added to Basic to beat the testosterone out of any potential male enlisted.
as a vet and know many still serving then this survey is bogus.
There is no way on this earth that 705 have no problem, this is all about corrupting a poll then trying to repeal before the GOP takes the house.
It is disgusting that FOX and others are not reporting the real facts and not asking the real questions about this survey
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.