http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ab880aaa1e88b39f5d8735699e916781.731&show_article=1

The head of the US Marines said on Thursday he opposed ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the first top officer to break openly with President Barack Obama over the issue. General James Conway told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he disagreed with Obama's plan to repeal the ban.

"My best military advice to this committee, to the (defense) secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is."

Conway said the current policy worked and any bid to lift the ban should answer the question:

"do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve?"

This new policy was inevitable anyway...I am very suprised to see General Conway speaking openly on this issue, however, I am not suprised that this marine has the balls to actually speak up and say what he thinks is right!

Do we somehow detract from the war fighting capabilities of the US by letting homosexuals openly serve?

I Wear Pants wrote: Do we somehow detract from the war fighting capabilities of the US by letting homosexuals openly serve?

It only took until the first response to add everything to the topic that I was going to. Well put.

I Wear Pants wrote: Do we somehow detract from the war fighting capabilities of the US by letting homosexuals openly serve?

Bingo.

If it remains a polarizing issue amongst the ranks it has the potential to weaken the efficiency of any mission. If it is accepted as commonplace amongst those that serve it is a non-issue no matter the rule in place and is reason enough to repeal the present rule.

Many years ago I heard Norman Schwarzkopf speak on this issue. It was following the Gulf war and after he was out. The topic of gays in the military was being hotly discussed in the media at the time and was similar to what I posted above only he added that he believed the military was not a place to be the leading edge of social change. He felt it should be lagging in social change to such an extent that whatever the issue was would be so widely accepted on the streets that it would be a non-issue when injected into the armed forces. I don't know that I agree with him entirely but his point was worth listening to and interesting. His insistence on the primary issue being to protect the nation and that anything that was so hotly contested socially and had the ability to potentially "polarize" the troops didn't need to be added on top of the already many things that created differences between them. As our society changed and became more accepting there would be a less invasive period to add such rule changes.

The odd thing is he might have gotten his wish in that, "don't ask, don't tell" didn't allow for openly gay people to serve and I think we can agree that the present day culture is certainly more accepting than 20 years ago. Based on reading some enlisted person's posts on here I don't believe a repeal of the present rule would be as polarizing as, say 20 ago.

By keeping the old rule, we are forcing people who want to serve to lie about who they are by not being able to just say that they are gay. It seems to me that we are perpetuating old fashioned prejudices by denying the right to serve to people who want to be honest and open about their sexual orientation. I personally think that whether a soldier is gay or not does not impact on his/her ability to do the job that they are assigned in the military. I think that the people who think it does, harbor old prejudices that aren't valid.

I don't know of anyone that ever thought that a gay person didn't have that ability to serve. Where did that come from?

The impacting problem was never with those that were gay but rather those that were not.

Ok, so what? The SECDEF is for the change and last time I heard, the Marines still work for the Secretary. The Secretary is for changing DADT, albeit slowly, but still.

So what? I don't even know what that means.

So what if he works for the Secretary of Defense? How does that change anything? My bet is if the Secretary of Defense tells him the policy is changed and he is to abide by it that the General will do so. Marines tend to follow orders well. Doesn't mean the General doesn't have an opinion nor does it mean the General won't follow policy.

Don't piss the Marines off.

On the thread about homosexuality in the "serious business" my beliefs with regards to homosexuality is there, but even with that here's my take on homosexuals in the military.

I do agree with what Schwarzkopf said years ago with regards to the military lagging behind on socially explosive issues for the reasons he listed.

However like someone else said, I believe society as a whole has moved far ahead in acceptance of homosexuality in the last 15+ years to where it just might be time to open up the military.

I love Adm. Mike Mullen's response.

"Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," Mullen said. "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

"For me, personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

Adm = Admiral =Own Ship = Navy = Closet Homo

During my three decades as a sexually active gay man, I have been with Marines, cops, priests, and just about every kind of person. The only kind I was not with were the wimpy silly assholes. There are many gays in the military, and the military is going to have to accept it.

bases_loaded wrote: Don't piss the Marines off.

Or else they'll march thousands straight at your position. The job will get done but they could have just, you know, made a plan.

FairwoodKing wrote: ... There are many gays in the military, and the military is going to have to accept it.

Not necessarily. Because they exist doesn't not mean they have to accept it.

I think they should and I think they will eventually but gays have been in the military since it's inception. They haven't accepted it yet and the military has become the best in the world.

Why is "don't ask, don't tell" lying? Isn't it just "not saying"?

ross ford81 wrote: Why is "don't ask, don't tell" lying? Isn't it just "not saying"?

If you want to argue semantics and think it isn't lying then whatever. But not being able to disclose something like that cannot be comfortable for a person.

I Wear Pants wrote:

ross ford81 wrote: Why is "don't ask, don't tell" lying? Isn't it just "not saying"?

If you want to argue semantics and think it isn't lying then whatever. But not being able to disclose something like that cannot be comfortable for a person.

I agree. It must be awful. I also believe there are folks who lack diverse perspectives that continue to this day to find it uncomfortable knowing. That's the problem...at least it used to be.

Con_Alma wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

ross ford81 wrote: Why is "don't ask, don't tell" lying? Isn't it just "not saying"?

If you want to argue semantics and think it isn't lying then whatever. But not being able to disclose something like that cannot be comfortable for a person.

I agree. It must be awful. I also believe there are folks who lack diverse perspectives that continue to this day to find it uncomfortable knowing. That's the problem...at least it used to be.

But bigots are allowed to be uncomfortable.

It's not about who is and isn't a bigot. It's about being certain the military is as effective as possible.

Con_Alma wrote: It's not about who is and isn't a bigot. It's about being certain the military is as effective as possible.

How is the military less effective with gays being allowed to serve?

Read the entire thread and your question might be answered.

I don't know that it is "less effective".

My point was that decisions regarding social issues in the military should not be made based on bigotry. I hope they are made based on impact and effectiveness of the troops. Based on this thread and the news media it appears that it still may be a polarizing issue. I thought we were passed that. Apparently there still may be something to it.

A lot of these same arguments were posed as recently as World War II regarding African Americans in the military. In today's world, nobody questions whether blacks should serve.

There are countries in the world where gays are free to join the military and there have been no appreciable problems. The U.S. military will eventually see the light.