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.
10/15/10
“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
Aim lower.
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 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.”
Yep!
“Marines of Conscience or Homosexual Marines”
http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Marines_of_Conscience_or_Ho.php
(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 unit’s combat efficiency?” Rather than enhancing combat efficiency, the opposite would be the result. In large part, the degree of a Marine unit’s combat efficiency parallels its degree of unit cohesion. As the term implies, unit cohesion is a function of the emotional closeness of the unit’s 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 issues—women in combat and gays in the military—are different manifestations of a single problem: the failure of America’s political leadership to understand the factors that motivate men to fight in battle and to continue fighting under the most horrific conditions—what 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...”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dont-repeal-dont-askdont-tell
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.
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.