Pentagon Study: No Harm in Ending 'Don't Ask'

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stanmaxkolbe

Guest
Pentagon Study: No Harm in Ending 'Don’t Ask’
foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/30/pentagon-study-gays-serve-harm/?test=latestnews

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon study that argues that gay troops could serve openly without hurting the military’s ability to fight is expected to re-ignite debate this month on Capitol Hill over repealing the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Officials familiar with the 10-month study’s results have said a clear majority of respondents don’t care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings hadn’t been released.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who have both said they support repealing the law, were scheduled to discuss the findings with Congress Tuesday morning and with reporters Tuesday afternoon.

Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have mostly opposed repealing the law because they say efforts to do so are politically driven and dangerous at a time of two wars.

“This was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency of the United States,” McCain told CNN’s “State of the Union” last weekend.

“The military is at its highest point in recruitment and retention and professionalism and capability, so to somehow allege that this policy has been damaging the military is simply false,” McCain said.

Democrats and gay rights groups counter that the study finally proves what they’ve known anecdotally for years: Most troops would accept an openly gay person in their units.

“It’s what we expected. The atmosphere in the active-duty has changed,” said a gay Air Force officer and co-founder of the advocacy group OutServe. The officer uses the pseudonym “JD Smith” to protect his identity.
The survey is based on responses by some 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses to more than a half million questionnaires distributed last summer. The study group, led by Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham, also visited various military bases and held town hall-style meetings with service members.

The findings of troop opinions would reflect the view of the broader population. According to a November survey by the Pew Research Center, 58 percent of Americans say they favor allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces while 27 percent oppose.

The House has already voted to overturn the law as part of a broader defense policy bill. But Senate Republicans have blocked the measure because they say not enough time has been allowed for debate on unrelated provisions in the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised a vote on the matter by the end of the year, after hearings can be held this week on the Pentagon study. Still, some gay rights groups have complained that Democratic leadership has done little to push for repeal before the new Congress takes over in January.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the majority leader is “very much committed to doing away with the ban this year” but that it was the GOP’s fault for blocking the bill.
 
The openly homosexual, Wikileaks Army Private, Bradley Manning taught them nothing.
 
Officials familiar with the 10-month study’s results have said a clear majority of respondents don’t care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results.
Just as some of us on this Forum said from our own experiences that most troops would accept an openly gay person in their units.
The findings of troop opinions would reflect the view of the broader population. According to a November survey by the Pew Research Center, 58 percent of Americans say they favor allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces while 27 percent oppose.
That’s all to the good having the civilian population behind this. 👍
 
From the OP: “Officials familiar with the 10-month study’s results have said a clear majority of respondents don’t care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results.”

Positive, mixed or no results from the survey. And that, we’re assured, proves it’s the thing to do.

If the Democrats succeed in getting rid of DADT, it will be an official government endorsement of overtly scandalous activity, according to the teachings of the Church. No way around that. So we, as Catholics, then, are supposed to be okay with that because “70 percent (in a government survey) predict that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results…”

Well, I see that Republicans are going to oppose the Democrats on the government affirming homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality in this society, before the young and everybody. Likely they’ll fail, but they could turn me into a Republican yet.
 
From the OP: “Officials familiar with the 10-month study’s results have said a clear majority of respondents don’t care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results.”

Positive, mixed or no results from the survey. And that, we’re assured, proves it’s the thing to do.

If the Democrats succeed in getting rid of DADT, it will be an official government endorsement of overtly scandalous activity, according to the teachings of the Church. No way around that. So we, as Catholics, then, are supposed to be okay with that because “70 percent (in a government survey) predict that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results…”

Well, I see that Republicans are going to oppose the Democrats on the government affirming homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality in this society, before the young and everybody. Likely they’ll fail, but they could turn me into a Republican yet.
Doesn’t the government all ready support homosexually they’re serving in Congress?
 
Barney Frank and his gay lover (vomiting now). And the Dem. Rep. Massa who was run out of town on a rail for tickling his male staffers.

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/eric-massas-navy-files/37309/

"Then came last week’s news that Massa, a 20-year Navy veteran elected to the House in 2008, was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly groping three young male staffers.

But in conversations yesterday and today with some of Massa’s Navy shipmates, it became clear that the behavior toward his subordinates that got Massa into trouble in Congress is part of pattern that dates to his time in the Navy.

According to Peter Clarke, a Navy shipmate, Massa was notorious for making unwanted advances toward subordinates. He tells the story of his friend Stuart Borsch, with whom Massa shared…"

"Clarke says that Massa’s roommate, Tom Maxfield, was also assaulted. “Tom lived on upper bunk,” Clarke said.

"When you’re on ship, you’re almost exhausted 24-7. So a lot of times you sleep with your uniform on.

Tom and Massa shared a stateroom together. Massa climbed up on the top of his bunk, which is hard to do–you never crawl up on somebody else’s bunk.

He wakes up to Massa undoing his pants trying to snorkel him."

Ron Moss also confirmed hearing this story from Maxfield. Maxfield did not return calls and messages left for him–I’ll update if he does."

Massa’s shipmates didn’t turn him in for fear that he would retaliate. “He was a cocky guy, competent, but he saw himself as a future admiral,” Moss told me. “It doesn’t surprise me he wound up in Congress.”
 
Doesn’t the government all ready support homosexually they’re serving in Congress?
The study makes it sound that ALL branches of the Military support this.

NOT the Marines.

They have gone on record in the Media and Newspapers saying the majority of them (including their higher-ups) unequivocally oppose this.

Most of the Militatry, but NOT ALL support this.

Semper Fi. 👍😃
 
Then came last week’s news that Massa, a 20-year Navy veteran elected to the House in 2008, was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly groping three young male staffers.

But in conversations yesterday and today with some of Massa’s Navy shipmates, it became clear that the behavior toward his subordinates that got Massa into trouble in Congress is part of pattern that dates to his time in the Navy.
There are also a lot of heterosexual male soldiers who hit on female soldiers. So? How do we eliminate gays and straights hitting on their fellow soldiers?
 
According to “homosexual acceptance studies” in the U.S., people overwhelming support gay marriage.

Yet, gay marriage, in California was rejected.

Hum…
.
Those studies, and the Pentagon “study” are outright lies.

Do you actually believe that the military took a vote of all people serving in the military?
 
According to “homosexual acceptance studies” in the U.S., people overwhelming support gay marriage.

Yet, gay marriage, in California was rejected.

Hum…
The Army isn’t proposing gay marriage. The California initiative had nothing to do with U.S. Army policy, which isn’t even up to the individual states to decide.
.
Those studies, and the Pentagon “study” are outright lies.
When you disagree with something, that’s one thing. But, when you call something a lie, you’d do well to be able to prove your assertion.
Do you actually believe that the military took a vote of all people serving in the military?
It was a survey, not a vote of each soldier. When we have national elections, do you actually believe that the government takes the vote of every last American eligible to vote??
 
The Army isn’t proposing gay marriage. The California initiative had nothing to do with U.S. Army policy, which isn’t even up to the individual states to decide.
.
But wait. As soon as DADT is repealed, we’ll be hearing “if homosexuals have a right to serve openly in the military, they have a right to be open in their marriages.”

And the very same people who are presently saying this has nothing to do with gay marriage will be the ones saying that.
 
But wait. As soon as DADT is repealed, we’ll be hearing “if homosexuals have a right to serve openly in the military, they have a right to be open in their marriages.”

And the very same people who are presently saying this has nothing to do with gay marriage will be the ones saying that.
Most likely, indeed. :cool::mad:
 
The study makes it sound that ALL branches of the Military support this.

NOT the Marines.

They have gone on record in the Media and Newspapers saying the majority of them (including their higher-ups) unequivocally oppose this.

Most of the Militatry, but NOT ALL support this.

Semper Fi. 👍😃
Not the Commandant.

Well I guess when the Commandant of the Corps doesn’t support it maybe the troops are going to go a long with him. I bet in reality the majority of Marines don’t really care. The military is just a reflection of our civilian society.
 
If anybody’s interested, here’s the actual report (along with a talking points guide a/k/a support plan) (also findings from the Qualitative Research )(and Findings from the Surveys)

There are about 600 pages worth of stuff in those reports. Frankly, Fox News (nor any other news agency) has had the time to actually go through them yet. And I don’t have time (or, for that matter, the energy) to do so myself.

As for my opinion, I am glad I’m retired from the service. No matter what, homosexuals are going to be allowed in and allowed to be and be proud. Regardless of my moral views on the subject, this is just a fact. And I am glad I don’t have to deal with it.

NB: That has nothing to do with about 75% - 90% of homosexual personnel who are or who would be in the military. That has to do with a **small **percentage of activists who will seek to make things really miserable for everybody who doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with them.
 
Barney Frank and his gay lover (vomiting now). And the Dem. Rep. Massa who was run out of town on a rail for tickling his male staffers.

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/eric-massas-navy-files/37309/

"Then came last week’s news that Massa, a 20-year Navy veteran elected to the House in 2008, was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly groping three young male staffers.

But in conversations yesterday and today with some of Massa’s Navy shipmates, it became clear that the behavior toward his subordinates that got Massa into trouble in Congress is part of pattern that dates to his time in the Navy.

According to Peter Clarke, a Navy shipmate, Massa was notorious for making unwanted advances toward subordinates. He tells the story of his friend Stuart Borsch, with whom Massa shared…"

"Clarke says that Massa’s roommate, Tom Maxfield, was also assaulted. “Tom lived on upper bunk,” Clarke said.

"When you’re on ship, you’re almost exhausted 24-7. So a lot of times you sleep with your uniform on.

Tom and Massa shared a stateroom together. Massa climbed up on the top of his bunk, which is hard to do–you never crawl up on somebody else’s bunk.

He wakes up to Massa undoing his pants trying to snorkel him."

Ron Moss also confirmed hearing this story from Maxfield. Maxfield did not return calls and messages left for him–I’ll update if he does."

Massa’s shipmates didn’t turn him in for fear that he would retaliate. “He was a cocky guy, competent, but he saw himself as a future admiral,” Moss told me. “It doesn’t surprise me he wound up in Congress.”
This story seems a little funny to me. This guy was never reported his lights were never punched out?

If that guy ever got near me he’d be hurt and I wouldn’t care what rank he had!

If I was a Navy guy I’d be mad at this story it’s suggesting that all Navy guys are sissy’s and I know they’re not.
 
But wait. As soon as DADT is repealed, we’ll be hearing “if homosexuals have a right to serve openly in the military, they have a right to be open in their marriages.”

And the very same people who are presently saying this has nothing to do with gay marriage will be the ones saying that.
Of course. That’s how evil operates: sleight of hand.
 
No harm in the government allowing open expression of homosexual relationships (which the Church considers gravely immoral), among people (soldiers) whom many look up to. Or so we’re told by some. However:

Mt. 18:6

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Even if I saw no secular harm in it, and even if I was not persuaded that homosexual marriage is the next thing on the agenda, (neither of which I grant) I could not favor repeal of DADT, as I would be participating in the scandal if I did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top