Flaylo
Handsome Devil
Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale - US News and World Report
This link touched upon some of the objections I've raised and I will posted them
As for us in the Army, how do we feel about it the possible repeal of DADT?
Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda.
Who's really getting discharged more, gays under DADT or others?
DADT really hurts the military more than any other people discharged, is that what that obstinate Navy fellow said earlier? Maybe he should reconsider.
A whooping 51 retired four-stars wrote Obama to that he should support DADT, this combined with the 58% of active duty subscribers to the Army Times says a lot about what servicemembers really think, leave it to Fathertime and he will say all of these people are homophobic active duty and retired military, but is that really the case? I leave it for each and every individual to decide for themselves.
This link touched upon some of the objections I've raised and I will posted them
The new "nondiscrimination" law would affect all military branches and communities, including Army and Marine infantry, special operations, Navy SEALs, and submarines. Unlike workers who return home at night, military personnel must accept living conditions that involve "forced intimacy," with little or no privacy. This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to share private quarters with men—a situation that would be unacceptable to the majority of military women even if misconduct never occurred. Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them.
As for us in the Army, how do we feel about it the possible repeal of DADT?
In the 2008 Military Times Poll, 58 percent of 2,000 active-duty subscribers said they opposed repeal of current policy—for the fourth year in a row. Responses to a new survey question found that if Congress repealed the 1993 law, almost 10 percent would not re-enlist, and an additional 14 percent would consider ending their careers. Many first-termers normally leave, but the loss of even a few thousand careerists in communities, grades, and skills that are not quickly or easily replaceable would come at a crippling cost—especially when we are at war and trying to grow the Army and Marine Corps.
Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda.
Who's really getting discharged more, gays under DADT or others?
Honorable discharges of gays who were misled about eligibility to serve are far fewer than losses due to pregnancy or weight standard violations. Clarify the meaning of the law, and such discharges could drop to near zero. There is no national security argument for legislation that would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in the all-volunteer force.
DADT really hurts the military more than any other people discharged, is that what that obstinate Navy fellow said earlier? Maybe he should reconsider.
A distinguished group of retired flag and general officers recently delivered to Obama and Congress a statement supporting the 1993 law, signed by more than 1,000 retired officers, including 51 of four-star rank. Noting that it "protectgood order, discipline, and morale in the unique environment of the military," the officers wrote, "As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law."
A whooping 51 retired four-stars wrote Obama to that he should support DADT, this combined with the 58% of active duty subscribers to the Army Times says a lot about what servicemembers really think, leave it to Fathertime and he will say all of these people are homophobic active duty and retired military, but is that really the case? I leave it for each and every individual to decide for themselves.
Last edited: