By I guess this means that the Marines are just a bunch of bigots right?
They are the few, the proud and perhaps the military’s biggest opponents of lifting the ban on openly gay troops.Most of those serving in America’s armed forces have no strong objections to repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, according to a Pentagon survey of 400,000 active duty and reservists that is scheduled for release Tuesday.
But the survey found resistance to repealing the ban strongest among the Marines, according to the Washington Post. It’s an attitude apparently shared by their top leader, Commandant Gen. James Amos, who has said that the government should not lift the ban in wartime. [Associated Press]
So what do people think about this passage?:
The Corps is the youngest, smallest and arguably the most tight-knit of the enlisted forces, with many of its roughly 200,000 members hailing from small towns and rural areas in the South.
I guess only bigots and racists come from the South.
I do wonder if that is true or not because the majority of Marines I have met are not from the South but from the West or East coast states
8:43 pm on November 30th, 2010 1
The arguments presented in that article are hilarious. In any case, I read that 69% of service members aren't opposed to lifting DADT. So, Marines are more opposed to it, but it fails to mention by how many percentage points. What is it? 68%? Yes, that article is a hack job.
8:43 pm on November 30th, 2010 2
eh
8:50 pm on November 30th, 2010 3
It just means, "They're the last to know."
9:37 pm on November 30th, 2010 4
Marines…
…first to go, last to blow.
9:38 pm on November 30th, 2010 5
Some actual numbers:
10:14 pm on November 30th, 2010 6
Did anyone actually believe that the survey the Pentagon conducted would come out any other way?
12:20 am on December 1st, 2010 7
USMC tells it like it is. They deserve respect for speaking the truth, no matter what the political consequences!
1:59 am on December 1st, 2010 8
5 JoeC, As a recently retired Enlisted guy, I would like to ask something. What is a negative impact?
For example, I would have been one of the 69% that agreed on no negative impact. But all of the 69% (interesting number, by the way) are likely able to take care of their own duties without interacting with those they have no desire to interact with.
In other words, I'm not impressed. The ones that are open about their perverted sexual desire for the same sex will be pushed to the side if they are too open. That is what happens to individuals that "don't fit in".
I'm sure there will be some support units that will turn into fag units. Like supple for example. I can hear them now. "yea, I gotta go and visit the fags in supply. Field exercise is coming up."
It will be fubar. But the military survived Bill Clinton's lack of leadership, so I'm not worried.
The Fags will come legally out, look around, some will get beat down and the rest will edge back to the door of that closet and slide back in.
Except for the flamers that find a home in Supply.
4:03 am on December 1st, 2010 9
#8
"I’m sure there will be some support units that will turn into fag units. Like supple for example. I can hear them now. "yea, I gotta go and visit the fags in supply. Field exercise is coming up."
I don't know about Supply, but they may migrate to the services' glee club units. The Air Force has Tops in Blue. They would style them into Broadway show stopper productions.
Then, on the uniform boards…. The Star Trek Enterprise uniforms we would see would be absolutely FABULOUS.
Sorry! A Tequila night ……
4:34 am on December 1st, 2010 10
Youngest? The USAAC and the USAF are younger by at least a hundred years.
8:32 am on December 1st, 2010 11
The sad part of this is that Chaplains may be the first to enter the brig for protecting the beliefs of many service members and families regarding cohabitation. Husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, daughters sons that will have to endure forced cohabitation potentially emotionally harmful to them. Then to be followed up by forced brain washing in an attempt to swallow the idea of cohabitation. Soon to be followed by the entry of gay marriage of which adultery will removed from the UCMJ. Studies show 80% of the military are Christian in some form and it's reported that 23% will not re-enlist if they are forced to endure an environment that could possibly harm them emotionally and the stability of family. We have been subjected to gay marriage issues however, they seem to lack the judgment that male/ female marriages practice regarding cohabitation. Can parents stand for a 17 year son to live with a gay man? These are good men that give everything to do the right thing don't feed them to the wolves. As quoted: The two angels arrives in Sodom, where Lot welcomes them into his house. Tellingly, his hospitality is not as effusive as Abraham’s. He clearly is the black sheep of the family. All the men of the city surround his house and demand that the strangers be handed over: “Bring them out to us that we may know them”. They intend to “know” the visitors in the sense of raping them. This is not a reasonable solution. Many Service Members are Southern baptist and the Southern Baptist Convention has a lot to say about the measures being forced upon service members as they do want this shoved down the throats of service members and families that have given so much.
8:54 am on December 1st, 2010 12
#8 I was thinking they would be more likely to coalesce in NBC. All that gear is similar to a gimp suit (which one should never fart in, BTW). Plus they can undress and decontaminate each other.
10:27 am on December 1st, 2010 13
Mmm, what happened to that link someone posted about the results of an American study on the affect of Canadian Armed Forces allowing gays in their military? The study had found it had no negative affect on combat readiness, esprit de corps, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_a…
" * Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
* Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
* The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.
* Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.
* None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.
"
12:13 pm on December 1st, 2010 14
My experience with the Marines is that they have a much higher percentage of folks form the Northeast. The Army is much more southern than the Marines.
2:32 pm on December 1st, 2010 15
Atwork #15, The US Military has more members per thousand of population than the Canadian Military & our forces are in many more countries scattered around the world. It is already hard enough to convince civilians to enlist in the first place & to persuade troops to re-enlist. It is obvious that if DADT is repealed then more homosexual & lesbians will enlist initially and those already in to re-enlist but since heterosexuals make up about 97% of the population the question is will they be dissuaded from enlisting & re-enlisting? The question is particularly poignant in regards to combats arms troops including the Marines. I don't think the comparison between Truman's racial desegregation & the proposed repeal of DADT is justified but when Truman racially desegregated the military he did it in 1948 which was in peacetime (WW2 ended in 1945 & Korea didn't start until 1950). We are now in TWO WARS. IF they are going to do this can we wait until the wars have ended or at least wound down?
4:07 pm on December 1st, 2010 16
Q: What do old people and the Canadian Marines have in common?
A: They both want the PPA.
Get it?
No?
For old people, the PPA is the Pension Protection Act.
For Canadian marines…
…it is…
..pee pee, eh?
4:54 pm on December 1st, 2010 17
As for the survey, figures don't lie, but liars do figure. I heard only 1 out of 4 military personnel even answered the survey. Sounds like a PC topic many didn't want to touch. Or were too busy deployed and fighting to have time to deal with.
5:16 pm on December 1st, 2010 18
Pops #19, Excellent point! Knowing the military I have some real doubts as to the anonymity of the survey. I have a feeling that the 'word' was put out as to what was expected. I have no proof but before I retired I saw some somewhat similar situations. In my opinion Dan Choi & his ilk don't think that laws, rules, & regulations apply to them and are therefore for that reason are UNFIT FOR MILITARY SERVICE. If you don't like a law then try to get it changed if you want but in the meantime obey the current law. Would a pro-DADT repeal person please answer this question: We are in the middle of TWO WARS, if we are going to do this could we at least wait until the f'ing wars are over to minimize disruption?
8:15 pm on December 1st, 2010 19
Vladimir Putin, on Larry King Live, said gays can serve openly in the Russian military. Although homosexuality was illegal under the Soviet Union, it isn't now. Mr. Putin also said that whan George W. Bush was president, they had good personal relations, even if their approach to international problems was sometimes different.
8:33 pm on December 1st, 2010 20
#20 They can join and serve in the Russian military but I wonder what their survival rate is?
1:10 am on December 2nd, 2010 21
The survey was a farce. The questions were all worded so that anyone who went against The Agenda would sound like a “bigot”. Not that THAT word has any real meaning or impact anymore….
8:43 am on December 2nd, 2010 22
"Most of those serving in America’s armed forces have no strong objections to repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law"
And they have no objections drinking in combat zones. Nor have objections smoking marijuana or taking recreational drugs on personal time. They probably wouldn't object to polygamy nor having a three day work week.
8:49 am on December 2nd, 2010 23
To be more clear remember those in their 30's grew up under the soviet system. They would be your mid-tier leaders and NCO's (though NCO's are much less powerful under the Russian model). While they(the average everyday Russian not to be confused with the mafia types etc) may have grown up godless, that doesn't mean they do not have firm morals. Believe it or not, those morals closely mesh with what a majority of mainstream xians profess to believe. While the lifestyle may not be illegal, gays do not fair well in mainstream Russian society.
/On a side note, they (the Soviet era Russians) could be a case study that proves morals are not necessarily the sole product of a holy book or any poltergeist and/or zombie like messiahs.
12:21 pm on December 2nd, 2010 24
Most people who join military were under achievers in civlian world.
2:58 pm on December 2nd, 2010 25
drinking in combat zone: I'd a voted for that.
Some time with Mary Jane?
Three day work week?? Not possible.
3:02 pm on December 2nd, 2010 26
Orbit, Source please. (pulls off white glove and slaps Orbit's face)
4:10 pm on December 2nd, 2010 27
"Most people who join military were under achievers in civlian world."
Retired GI,
You are showing yourself to be an uneducated hick short on reading comprehension and quick to be offended.
Orbit didn't call them "underachievers". He said they were "under achievers"… meaning they worked for achievers… and, presumably, the habits and skills which made them such achievers, influenced those who were under them.
Orbit was complementing those who joined the military as associating themselves with achievers.
Sheesh, Retired GI… carefully read what people write before commenting.
Orbit,
By "civlian world", did you mean the Civlian homeworld… which is a lush planetoid that rests in a lagrangian point between Reticulus and Alpha Ceti 5.
I had no idea that many people in the military had even been there.
5:11 pm on December 2nd, 2010 28
Orbit is our Favorite Chicom's idiot brother. I refuted his last comment on GI education levels and he had nothing to say just like now.
10:05 pm on December 2nd, 2010 29
"So, you’re saying it’s more diverse…"
It doesn't mean that at all, it means the burden for recruitment per population is greater than Canada.
"PS. We have soldiers here in South Korea. Just a few, but enough to justify participation in a new Korean War."
I understand that both of them are quite professional.
12:48 am on December 3rd, 2010 30
“I had no idea that many people in the military had even been there.” See comment 25.
4:02 am on December 3rd, 2010 31
Chickenhead,
If anyone tells you he’s a Canadian Marine, he’s probably a Quebecer in the Navy. We don’t have Marines, and Navy is “Marine” in French.
“The US Military has more members per thousand of population than the Canadian Military & our forces are in many more countries scattered around the world. ”
So, you’re saying it’s more diverse…More reason to drop DADT.
Besides, Canadians are discreet. I heard stuff through the grapevine while I was serving and from friends who retired from the Canadian military that would change your opinion pretty quickly concerning our apparent low key approach.
PS. We have soldiers here in South Korea. Just a few, but enough to justify participation in a new Korean War.
4:24 am on December 3rd, 2010 32
No Canadian marines, Teadrinker?
Well. Darn. I had no idea. Thanks for the heads up.
Come to think of it, though, I guess I have really never seen a Canadian marine… or even heard of one…
…and it isn’t really fitting with Canada’s overall military strategy.
I guess I’ll have to make fun of a broader group from now on to make sure this kind of mistake isn’t repeated.
Does this pass the fact-checking?
Canadian troops never tire
of finding targets to acquire.
Enemy combatants are fine,
but a much better time,
is a face-full of wet friendly fire.
7:21 am on December 3rd, 2010 33
Military is for people who can't succeed in civlian world.
8:02 pm on December 3rd, 2010 34
#33 Orbit – “Military is for people who can’t succeed in civlian world.”
You might want to do a bit of research on the requirements for entrance into West Point and the Naval Academy. In case you do not know, they are higher learning military institutions of the U.S.. Since it’s quite probable that you are Asian (probably Korean), does this quote also pertain to your countrymen, or just the U.S.?
11:40 pm on December 3rd, 2010 35
Orbit #24 & 33. Those underachievers have kept your worthless a$$ free.