Author Topic: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban  (Read 4467 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2010, 06:53:49 PM »
strawman "the post office is doing just fine...I would buy stock in the post office if I could"

LOL yeaaaaaa im clueless  ;)

no doubt about that


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2010, 02:08:20 PM »
I think this was a mistake and DADT was a good compromise, and they shouldn't be doing this in the middle of war. 

But . . . given the fact open homosexuals make up such a tiny percentage of the population, and an even smaller percentage of the military, I don't think it will create too much of a problem.  Also, this appears to apply to homosexuals and not "bisexuals," transgendered, and "gender identity" categories, which should make things much simpler.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2010, 11:20:35 AM »
Some early fallout.  I hope this doesn't become a trend. 

Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination
Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military
Posted: December 24, 2010
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

President Obama's repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already  damaging the U.S. military.

An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.

Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo "behavior modification" training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.

Discover what's causing modern America to disintegrate. Read "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"

The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy

1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.

2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it."

"I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.

The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.

"These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy,"  he told WND.

Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.

"Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service," said the officer. "I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey," referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.

"I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle."

Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.

"I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit," the officer told WND. "DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it."

The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:

"I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution."

As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.

The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.

"One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation."

Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243213

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39462
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2010, 11:22:15 AM »
penny wise - dollar foolish to have done this.  DADT was not a problem and now all we are doing is pissing off  many others. 

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2010, 03:05:45 PM »
penny wise - dollar foolish to have done this.  DADT was not a problem and now all we are doing is pissing off  many others. 

better than pissing on them.
w

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2010, 03:17:33 PM »
What was the end of DADT going to change???




w

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39462
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #31 on: December 26, 2010, 03:18:38 PM »
Brilliant - piss off the majority to placate a tiny amount of vocal gay mental patients. 

Yeah - fucking briiliant. 

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2010, 06:45:48 AM »
it's all part of the AGENDA.....


oooops, I shouldn't have said that; it's a secret.
w

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39462
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2010, 07:01:52 AM »
Its not secret at all. 

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2010, 10:55:37 AM »
Its not secret at all. 

then what's next on 'the list'   {not referring to the A List-New York} currently on LOGO.
w

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2010, 11:05:31 AM »
then what's next on 'the list'   {not referring to the A List-New York} currently on LOGO.

come on

anyone who has been reading 333's post knows that next is the deliberate "collapse" of the government followed but Obama declaring himself dictator on the new Communist States of America


chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2010, 01:45:12 PM »
come on

anyone who has been reading 333's post knows that next is the deliberate "collapse" of the government followed but Obama declaring himself dictator on the new Communist States of America



that's the Marxist/Commie/LibLeft agenda.
the above secret list is the .....drum roll, please.................. ......................th e GAY AGENDA ! they are not exactly the same.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2010, 07:44:02 AM »
Special Forces Wary of 'Don't Ask' Repeal
Tuesday, 28 Dec 2010     
By Rowan Scarborough

Special-operations troops think the elite force is facing difficulties by accepting open gays into one of the military's more politically conservative communities.

Interviews with current and former commandos reveal that to maintain unit cohesion of Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs or other elite covert warriors, the military services and U.S. Special Operations Command need to make a special effort to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know the rules of conduct.

"I'm unsure how the Defense Department will define 'openly gay,' " said one Green Beret officer. "I can envision all sorts of new regulations or changes to existing ones, class after class, accusations flying, and more strains on our soldiers. We will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to establish the new rules of the road and to implement them."

Of particular interest is how Navy SEALs, the macho sea, air and land commandos who put great emphasis on physical prowess, will accept gays.

"If an open gay does his job, I think he'll be accepted," said retired Rear Adm. George R. Worthington, a former Navy SEAL. At retirement in 1992, Adm. Worthington commanded the Naval Special Warfare Command, the unit that mints new SEALs in a demanding qualification process.

"I don't think there is going to be that many of them that want to sign up for SEALs anyway because of the closeness and the tightness of the training," Adm. Worthington said.

"My opinion is that they're probably more clerical oriented. Medical profession. Corpsmen. Stuff like that."

Gay-advocacy groups said they know of no research that estimates the percentage of gays in support or desk jobs, compared with close-knit combat occupations, such as special operations and infantry.

Integration in what are called special-operations forces (SOF) is particularly important in the war on terrorism. Covert units are active in Afghanistan hunting down insurgents. Troops are expected to bond closely in small units and survive in harsh forward camps.

Special Operations Command oversees about 60,000 troops, including active and reserves. Of those, about 19,000 are combatants, what the command calls operators.

"It would be premature for me to speculate on how USSOCOM will implement the new policy," spokesman Kenneth McGraw said.

In March, Adm. Eric Olson, who heads Special Operations Command, was asked about the ban during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

"I believe the time has come to consider a change to 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Adm. Olson said. "But I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative manner that should include the conduct of the review that [Defense] Secretary [Robert M.] Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on a change in the policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, morale and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those policies as well."

The Pentagon has begun a process expected to last several months to usher in open gays, with the first step the writing of regulations and education program to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know what is expected of them.

"Put the word out," said Adm. Worthington. "If you hit on somebody, you're going to get in a fistfight. You may not like it. I just think if they maintain their composure, they don't bother anybody." The Washington Times interviewed three Army Green Berets who deployed to Afghanistan. They asked not to be named because they are not authorized to speak to the press.

"Our folks tend to be more mature, so that may make it easier," said one officer, who supported repeal. "But, many parts of the SOF community are very white and conservative. That already hurts minority recruitment and will inevitably have an adverse affect on outwardly gay male soldiers." A 1999 Rand study found that "blacks are particularly underrepresented [in SOF] when compared with their presence in the source populations."

The Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for personnel is leading the creation of new open-gay regulations.

Another Green Beret officer said he fears Pentagon bureaucrats are so removed from barracks life they will not take privacy into account.

"It is such a complicated issue, and the military itself doesn't seem to realize what it may be in for in the coming years," the officer said.

"Take the issue of showers. Is a soldier wrong for not wanting to shower with a gay soldier?" he asked "The definition of 'coed' needs to be defined, and it is not adequately covered by existing regulations. I think there will be very interesting lawsuits in the future raised by conservative soldiers as a backlash."

The first Green Beret commando said the military does not even know how many gays are in the active force, making it difficult to target education programs. "So is it worth the strains, is it worth the cost, especially at a period in time when combat soldiers are indeed stressed and the economy is in bad shape?" the officer said.

"My rhetorical question is, 'Why couldn't we have waited until a period of relative peace to implement these changes? That's what we did with racial integration; that's what we did to go to an all-volunteer force."

A former ground intelligence officer who worked with some of the most secret special-operations warriors told The Times: "I believe it will be less of an issue in SOF units where operators are typically more intelligent out-of-the-box thinkers who have gone through an extremely challenging bonding process together."

The Pentagon working group set up to recommend how - not whether - to integrate open gays found the most resistance among Marine Corps and Army combat personnel - the ones who deploy in small units and intimate surroundings.

More than 60 percent of Marines, for example, said avowed gays will hurt their unit's effectiveness. The survey did not specifically query special operators.

The working group's report contained this observation: "These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not 'fit' the image of a good warfighter - a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters.

"Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special-operations force warfighter told us, 'We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.' "

Said Adm. Worthington: "It just depends on how they comport themselves. If they start breaking out the bows and the earrings in the barracks, that might cause a little trouble. That becomes a good order and discipline sort of thing. The services are going to have to tighten up on regulations."

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Special-Forces-DontAsk-Repeal/2010/12/28/id/381198

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2010, 08:13:52 AM »

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Special-Forces-DontAsk-Repeal/2010/12/28/id/381198

I wonder why Newsmax didn't mention this from the recent survey of the military:

Quote
According to the results of a survey sent to troops this summer and cited in the report, 69 percent of respondents said they had served with someone in their unit who they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who did, 92 percent stated that their unit's ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor, according to the report.Combat units reported similar responses, with 89 percent of Army combat units and 84 percent of Marine combat units saying they had good or neutral experiences working with gays and lesbians.

At the same time, the survey found that 30 percent of those surveyed overall -- and between 40 and 60 percent of the Marine Corps -- either expressed concern or predicted a negative reaction if Congress were to repeal the law.

Those concerns are "driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay service members were allowed to be 'open' about their sexual orientation," the report's authors concluded. "Repeatedly, we heard service members express the view that 'open' homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and a small overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion and morality."

Such concerns are "exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many service members," the report said.

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2010, 01:14:55 PM »
did the 20+ other countries , who allow gays/lesbians, have these same questions and issues?
how did they work them out?
the usa bois and girls cant really be that much different than any other 18-20 year olds around the world.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Senate advances bill to lift military gay ban
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2011, 10:57:20 AM »
Hang on! 'Don't Ask' repeal faces fresh fire
Congress wary after generals admit they 'don't know' how 'gays' impact readiness
Posted: April 22, 2011
By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Republican leaders in Congress are talking about new ways of putting the brakes on repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" after top military brass repeatedly told a House committee hearing they "don't know" how welcoming open homosexuality in the ranks will affect combat readiness.

Though Congress last year repealed the 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military, open homosexuality in the ranks won't officially be permitted until after the president, secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that implementation of the change "is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention of the armed forces."

At a full House Armed Services Committee hearing earlier this month, however, those "standards" came into question, as U.S. military leaders wilted under demands from congressional members to justify repeal of the policy.

According to a report from the Center for Military Readiness, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., challenged the military leaders, "I want to know how repeal increases combat effectiveness."

"[It is] too soon for me to tell," answered Marine Commandant General and Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Amos. "Some of this will become evolutionary, revealed over time."

When questioned by Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., Gen. Amos reportedly replied, "Ma'am, I can't tell you at this point. … Will it improve recruiting, retention and combat effectiveness? I can't address that because I don't know."

Army Vice Chief General Peter W. Chiarelli similarly told Hunter, "We don't know yet how it's going to affect combat readiness. … But as we work this out over time, inclusive organizations are usually the best kinds of organizations."

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead dodged the question altogether.

When asked by Hunter if Navy SEAL combat effectiveness would improve after DADT repeal, Roughead deflected, answering, "I believe that we will see great young sailors, who perhaps otherwise would not serve, able to serve."

When questioned how recruiting would be affected, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz answered, "[DADT repeal] potentially increases the recruiting pool – we will have to see."

In a letter to Committee Chair Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., Army Chief of Staff General George Casey – who was unable to attend the meeting – wrote, "I believe it is too early to say what the impact on implementation of the repeal of DADT will have on our morale, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, recruiting and retention in the Army."

Hunter eventually concluded in the meeting, "I think we heard [all of you] don't know whether repeal will increase combat effectiveness yet."

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., reached a similar conclusion and challenged the military leaders: "You are the last force that could stop this onerous policy. And I have to believe … you know this is not the right thing. I appreciate the chain of command … but there is an opportunity to not certify this, and it's fallen upon you at this time in history, to be able to give the final say to the Secretary of Defense and to [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Admiral [Michael] Mullen, whether you … believe this is going to improve our forces from this time on out and help us win wars. I ask you to consider this … and that you would not certify this."

Hunter proposes repeal roadblock

Prior to the committee hearing, Rep. Hunter had already proposed House Resolution 337, which would expand the certification requirement to repeal DADT to also include the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

Following the hearing, House Armed Services Committee Chair McKeon added his support to the additional requirements, telling C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program that he felt the Democrats pushed the DADT repeal through during the post-election "lame duck" session without giving Congress the opportunity to "ask proper questions."

"I think [Hunter's bill] makes [certification] a better process," McKeon said. "I think the way this process was rammed through, it was done politically."

"I'm not in the military," McKeon added, "but my job is to help protect the military and to see that they have what they need to carry out their missions and to return home safely. If there is something that is going to be a distraction to that, that might put them in a difficult situation, I don't think we should be doing that. "

When asked if he would be upset if certification happened and DADT were effectively repealed, McKeon replied, "It's not going to bother me at all. What I'm concerned about is the troops that it may bother. I don't have a problem with it, other than what it does to our readiness, what it does to our recruitment, what it does to our retention. I don't think we have really fully answered those questions."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=290329