Marine Commandant: Gays could cause additional military deaths

[hotatlboi]

I think it's a hoot that anybody would argue that a Marine would be so concerned about the possibility of anybody even possibly lusting after him.

These guys eat nails for breakfast and face death everyday with a smile. Do you really mean to tell me that very thought of somebody checking your ass out in the shower is going to destroy unit cohesion?

Please, let's not let the enemy find out! They've been doing it all wrong. Instead of fighting the Marines, just stick your tongue in their ear. Unit cohesion will fall apart and the bad guys will rule the world!

Of course, that is absurd. I hope he doesn't really think the Marines are that weak.

I think it has more to do with the attitude some Marines have where they basically think they are better than everyone else, and they view gay people with stereotypical ideas of thinking they are all weak and feminine, and therefore they think being forced to share their title of Marine with a gay person would somehow be less distinguishing for themselves.

 

[rareboy]

I think it's a hoot that anybody would argue that a Marine would be so concerned about the possibility of anybody even possibly lusting after him.

These guys eat nails for breakfast and face death everyday with a smile. Do you really mean to tell me that very thought of somebody checking your ass out in the shower is going to destroy unit cohesion?

Please, let's not let the enemy find out! They've been doing it all wrong. Instead of fighting the Marines, just stick your tongue in their ear. Unit cohesion will fall apart and the bad guys will rule the world!

I'd be glad to tongue the ears of a platoon or two.

 

[Stardreamer]

I respectfully disagree. The service chiefs are selected based on their willingness to follow military protocol. Abiding by the wishes of one's superior does not make him a "yes man" or "old school."

When Gen. Douglas MacArthur thought he could go over President Truman's authority, Truman had no other choice but to fire him.

According to MSNBC when Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired:
Obama said bluntly that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's scornful remarks about administration officials represent conduct that "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

He ousted the commander after a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office and named Petraeus, the Central Command chief, who was McChrystal's direct boss, to step in.

You need to reread what I said. I clearly say that WHEN President Obama sets the policy the General is expected to follow military protocol and obey. We aren't talking about scornful remarks about the President or about going over the President's authority. We are talking about a person who is expected to be a leader and an expert on military affairs expressing his opinion on a policy matter still under debate. That is not a breach of military protocol and a service head who simply parroted the President's opinions would be a "Yes Man" and frankly little use as a service leader.

 

[Stardreamer]

But Gen. Amos is basically telling us that his Marines don't have self-discipline, that they're so bad at focusing on their duty that even a fly landing on their bare arms in a combat situation is likely to get them killed. These are guys who are expected to stay put if they land on an ant trail at the end of a stealth rush forward, and we're supposed to believe that they're so afraid the Marine next to them can't stop thinking about their ass they won't be able to carry out their duties?

I submit that if he really believes what he's saying, with its implications, that the President should remove him not for bigotry, but for being unfit for his command because he regards his Marines as weak little boys.

Agreed, his thinking is decidedly stuck in an earlier era of military thought. He doesn't seem to realize that most of the military folks have grown beyond his viewpoint. That is why I said he is representing the 'Old School' the previous generation of flag officers who got us stuck with DADT in the first place.

 

[Rex]

I'd like to hear CJHJ's opinion on this considering how he always goes on and on about how Marines aren't homophobic and he always has sex with straight marines.


Anyway as an Active Duty member in the military, a good number of them are still homophobic and are FOR DADT even though surveys and polls keep telling me otherwise. Maybe it's just the ones I talk to but it seems like most of them still want this policy in place.

I am really, really hoping DADT gets dropped very soon but it doesn't seem likely. I was so sure it was coming to an end but doesn't seem that way anymore. Hopefully that's not true.


Right now the popular excuse seems to be "we don't want to make a big policy change during a time of war" but that means they want to wait for war to end which will be years. Even if it weren't for the war they'd find another excuse after excuse.

I'm all for gays in the service, but does anyone ever think that it might be a double edged sword as well? That it also might be a wet dream for SERIOUS homophobes too? Seeing as how they know who is gay, so they can unleash rage on gay men?

I even remember someone on here saying he knew someone who said he hoped DADT was done away with, so they could ID gay men and shoot them all to death.

Now don't take this the wrong way, I am all for gay men fighting, but the above is also a possible scenario and we are bound to see and hear about some cases of this happening if DADT is kicked down. Homophobes and guns wouldn't mix well I'd imagine.

I suppose you take the good with the bad with everything in life though.

It their military career means anything to them then they won't do this. If they do, I still don't see it as a good reason not to drop this policy. Assaut towards other military members is a serious offense.

 

[Supersix]

Aren't the younger generations much more tolerant of gay people? I doubt if anyone really cares anymore, and if they do, they will be in the minority. Besides, in the heat of battle, no one is going to be thinking about who is checking who out. They will all have more important things on their minds, like staying alive, and defeating the enemy.

 

[Rex]

I think you underestimate our brave young soldiers. They really could give a rat's rear end if somebody in their company is gay or not. It's the higher ups that are still a bit uptight. Yes, there are no doubt soldiers who are homophobes just as there are bankers, doctors and lawyers who are. But we have laws that discourage acting on those feelings. It is a societal expectation that people follow these rules.

Don't the polls/surveys talked about in this artice state otherwise?

You guys keep mentioning that most people don't care anymore but the article said:

The Defense Department survey, released last month, found that 58 percent of those in Marine combat arms units predicted that repeal would negatively affect their ability to "work together to get the job done." In comparison, 48 percent of those in Army combat units felt the same way.

Someone I recently spoke with in the military told me he thinks trying to change the DADT law is "bullshit" and another who I know who is going to be enlisting in the Army soon told me he thinks "gays shouldn't even be in the military". Some younger generation don't care anymore but a lot of them are raised with these beliefs and it follows them through their adult life.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Someone I recently spoke with in the military told me he thinks trying to change the DADT law is "bullshit" and another who I know who is going to be enlisting in the Army soon told me he thinks "gays shouldn't even be in the military". Some younger generation don't care anymore but a lot of them are raised with these beliefs and it follows them through their adult life.

Ten to one your "friends" are fags themselves. Hence their "friends" status with you. No surprise there.

 

[Rex]

Ten to one your "friends" are fags themselves. Hence their "friends" status with you. No surprise there.

Could be true. I really don't know how accurate stastics are but we all know that gay people can sometimes be more homophobic than heteros.

Anyway I really don't understand politics that well but I see that the House has voted for reppeal of this law. Does this mean the policy will more than likely be dorpped now?

I don't like getting my hopes up because even when it did finally get dropped it was brought back a week later. When is a decision just made final? Seems like never.

 

[Ninja108]

At the end of the day, it's not his call to make. If DADT is overturned, he can either shut the hell up or resign, simple as that.

 

[Odyssey Number 5]

Don't the polls/surveys talked about in this artice state otherwise?

Exactly. And just because a law comes into place, doesn't mean everyone will follow and abide by it. If that were the case then there would be no crime at all EVER. A law is worthless if the majority of people don't abide by it. I hear there is still segregation by race in the service to a degree, so I would imagine it would be 10 times worse with gays. And in all honesty the race issue usually isn't as big of a deal with straight men as the gay thing. Most straight guys I know of all races have other straight male friends of all races, but most of them don't care for gays or would at least be uncomfortable. Race and Gay are not the same thing. People of any race can be racist, people of any race can be gay, people of any race can be homophobic. Heterosexual males of all races and nationalities can be homophobic, and it shouldn't shock people. Why would you expect someone to agree with what you are just because they are also disliked by a sum of people? That's illogical. Different groups in society are scorned for different reasons, so you really can't compare that.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
It occurs to me that blacks should be [STRIKE]fiercely[/STRIKE] vigorously advocating for DADT repeal: it would kick color discrimination a bit farther in the passt by putting something else up front.

Just a thought.

 

[Stardreamer]

It their military career means anything to them then they won't do this. If they do, I still don't see it as a good reason not to drop this policy. Assaut towards other military members is a serious offense.

I've never really understood the excuse that having gays in the military will cause trouble with troops who object to homosexuality. If they can't overcome their prejudices to be professionals I have to ask what do you want more in the military? A homosexual who is otherwise a good troop or a bigot with little self control?

 

[asu1117]

Just a thought, but when DADT does get repealed I feel sure that a good percentage of gay men in the Military will choose to remain in the closet.

Just because one has the option to be honest doesn't mean one takes it.

 

[Stardreamer]

Just a thought, but when DADT does get repealed I feel sure that a good percentage of gay men in the Military will choose to remain in the closet.

Just because one has the option to be honest doesn't mean one takes it.

True but they won't be forced to lie about it or even worse forced out because someone with a grudge ratted them out. I still don't openly admit my bisexuality even though I'm a civilian now and not subject to DADT anymore. But that is a personal choice to not cause waves for no real benefit. If someone asked I would tell the truth about it. But when I was in uniform it was always a concern.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've never really understood the excuse that having gays in the military will cause trouble with troops who object to homosexuality. If they can't overcome their prejudices to be professionals I have to ask what do you want more in the military? A homosexual who is otherwise a good troop or a bigot with little self control?

For that matter, if they really object to homosexuality, what are they doing in the armed services of a country that doesn't persecute homosexuals to death? They're protecting us as much as anyone.

 

[rareboy]

Just a thought, but when DADT does get repealed I feel sure that a good percentage of gay men in the Military will choose to remain in the closet.

Just because one has the option to be honest doesn't mean one takes it.

It is about having the option.

And the option is about having rights. Equal rights.

 

[Stardreamer]

It is about having the option.

And the option is about having rights. Equal rights.

Not just having to option but to be secure that your whole career won't be ruined because someone else reports on you and you are confronted with lie or else.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Just a thought, but when DADT does get repealed I feel sure that a good percentage of gay men in the Military will choose to remain in the closet.

Just because one has the option to be honest doesn't mean one takes it.

Very true. Look here at JUB, quite a number of posters and even a couple of our mods are in the closet at work & perhaps in other facets of their life. But in the military even mere whispers you're gay now can sink your career.

DADT repeal means people have the freedom to choose to let their homo light shine bright, or keep it under a box like they've been doing for years.