Export thread
DADT hearings after Pentagon Report...
#1
Krisken
Krisken
The Pentagon report on DADT found that 92% of troops are fine with working with gay service members.
John McCain continues to be the most vocal opponent of repealing DADT, and in the words of Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is being "entirely dismissive bordering on disrespect."
Admiral Mike Mullen's opening statements, however, are downright inspirational.
John McCain continues to be the most vocal opponent of repealing DADT, and in the words of Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is being "entirely dismissive bordering on disrespect."
Admiral Mike Mullen's opening statements, however, are downright inspirational.
Mullen said:There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas. There is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period. That’s why I also believe leadership will prove vital.
In fact, leadership matters most. The large majority of troops who believe they have served in a unit with gays and lesbians rate that unit’s performance high across virtually all dimensions, but highest in those units that are well-led. Indeed, the practical differences between units in which there were troops believed to be gay or lesbian and those in which no one was believed to be so, completely disappeared in effectively-led commands.
My belief is, if and when the law changes, our people will lead that change in a manner consistent with the oath they took. As one Marine officer put it, “If that’s what the president orders, I can tell you by God we’re going to excel above and beyond the other services to make it happen.”
And frankly, that’s why I believe that in the long run, repeal of this law makes us a stronger military and improves readiness. It will make us more representative of the country we serve. It will restore to the institution the energy it must now expend in pursuing those who violate the policy. And it will better align those organizational values we claim with those we practice.
As I said back in February, this is about integrity. Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.
It is true there are no – is no Constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. But the military serves all the people of this country, no matter who they are or what they believe. And every one of those people, should they be fit and able, ought to be given the opportunity to defend it.
One final word. And with all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain, it is true that, as Chairman, I am not in charge of troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets. And I was most recently a Service Chief myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women.
You do not have to agree with me on this issue. But don’t think for one moment that I haven’t carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor. Thank you.
#2
Chibibar
Chibibar
I believe the conservative senators DON'T want to acknowledge homosexual in general. Cause it will lead the chain of event that they DON'T want.
(This is TOTALLY my personal opinion on the matter with no fact to back it up)
If the Federal government allow service men and women who are same sex oriented to serve and get benefits (they would have to) then what?
same sex marriage would be the next logical step on the Federal level which will in turn repeal ALL local state laws.
I believe that any of the conservative senators don't want to touch that with a million mile pole.
Personally I think it is a good step. Our brothers and sisters who are currently serving who have same sex preference are endangered from harassment. We have read stories that other soldiers already know they exist but don't say anything cause it allow "free" hazing. If the victim report on them, then that victim is punish instead of the soldiers hazing due to DADT.
That is just my view.
(This is TOTALLY my personal opinion on the matter with no fact to back it up)
If the Federal government allow service men and women who are same sex oriented to serve and get benefits (they would have to) then what?
same sex marriage would be the next logical step on the Federal level which will in turn repeal ALL local state laws.
I believe that any of the conservative senators don't want to touch that with a million mile pole.
Personally I think it is a good step. Our brothers and sisters who are currently serving who have same sex preference are endangered from harassment. We have read stories that other soldiers already know they exist but don't say anything cause it allow "free" hazing. If the victim report on them, then that victim is punish instead of the soldiers hazing due to DADT.
That is just my view.
#3
Chibibar
Chibibar
McCain faults military gays study, wants ban kept - Yahoo! News
Looks like McCain is going all out against it.
Looks like McCain is going all out against it.
#4
Krisken
Krisken
Honestly, he's just the guy in the corner who will never change his mind on the subject due to his own biases. I think Mullen said it best when he stated that the troops will do what they are told because that is how the military operates.
#5
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
From the article...
They have, McCain. 92% of them said they didn't care. Your the one trying to subvert their choice, not the people asking to repeal DADT."We send these young people into combat," said McCain. "We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness."
#6
strawman
The 92% you are referring to is: Of those that served with service personnel they believed were gay indicated that they did not see an impact on morale or effectiveness. (not that there was no impact, simply that they didn't notice one)
Not that it matters - both questions (and thus the numbers) are very squishy - in other words there are a myraid of ways to attack and refute them, such as the ways I suggested above. The biggest question I have is what is the composition of the 28% that responded? Are they mostly on the front lines? Do they live on base or off base? What facilities do they share with their fellow service personnel? Certainly those who work on base and live off base, sharing no more than an office with their gay peers will have few to no issues, but the story might be different for those who share barracks.
Not that it matters. It's going to be repealed, and they'll deal with whatever fallout occurs. It'll either happen due to congress's action, or through the court system.
strawman
You have the quote wrong.From the article...
They have, McCain. 92% of them said they didn't care. Your the one trying to subvert their choice, not the people asking to repeal DADT."We send these young people into combat," said McCain. "We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness."
(note that they only "think" it will hurt their ability to fight)Nearly 60 percent of those in Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight.
The 92% you are referring to is: Of those that served with service personnel they believed were gay indicated that they did not see an impact on morale or effectiveness. (not that there was no impact, simply that they didn't notice one)
Not that it matters - both questions (and thus the numbers) are very squishy - in other words there are a myraid of ways to attack and refute them, such as the ways I suggested above. The biggest question I have is what is the composition of the 28% that responded? Are they mostly on the front lines? Do they live on base or off base? What facilities do they share with their fellow service personnel? Certainly those who work on base and live off base, sharing no more than an office with their gay peers will have few to no issues, but the story might be different for those who share barracks.
Not that it matters. It's going to be repealed, and they'll deal with whatever fallout occurs. It'll either happen due to congress's action, or through the court system.
#7
rabbitgod
I heard someone say that their concern was what the individual commanders thought. My thought was, "I don't give a shit, they do what the American public wants."
rabbitgod
Spot on for McCain.Honestly, he's just the guy in the corner who will never change his mind on the subject due to his own biases. I think Mullen said it best when he stated that the troops will do what they are told because that is how the military operates.
I heard someone say that their concern was what the individual commanders thought. My thought was, "I don't give a shit, they do what the American public wants."
#8
Covar
Covar
92% of the 28% of the military that turned in a completed survey. It's also worth noting that out of 103 questions on that survey, not one actually bothered to ask directly about repealing DADT. This is just politicians on both sides using the military to promote agenda, while nearly completely ignoring the very people it will impact.From the article...
They have, McCain. 92% of them said they didn't care. Your the one trying to subvert their choice, not the people asking to repeal DADT."We send these young people into combat," said McCain. "We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness."
#9
Denbrought
SURE THING DOG
Denbrought
92% of the 28% of the military that turned in a completed survey. It's also worth noting that out of 103 questions on that survey, not one actually bothered to ask directly about repealing DADT. This is just politicians on both sides using the military to promote agenda, while nearly completely ignoring the very people it will impact.[/QUOTE]From the article...
They have, McCain. 92% of them said they didn't care. Your the one trying to subvert their choice, not the people asking to repeal DADT."We send these young people into combat," said McCain. "We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness."
SURE THING DOG
"2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Uniformed Active ...", p.17/32, from 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Uniformed Active Duty and Reserve Service Members
#10
Tress
Tress
It doesn't get more direct than that.
#11
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I think John Stewart said it best last night: The only way they could have made it more specific was if they personally singled out the gay guy/gal in your unit and asked you if they made you feel uncomfortable.
#12
D
Dubyamn
It wasn't meant to answer those questions. What it was meant to answer was if DADT was repealed how would the military's effectiveness be affected and the overwhelming answer is little to none.
D
Dubyamn
A significant difference is a significant difference. If you think that there is some selection bias such as those who oppose the repeal of DADT are those who are unable or unwilling to fill out a survey then that would be a reason to disregard the findings but 1 out of 4 people is actually an amazing return on the survey and provides a significant degree of statistical proof.92% of the 28% of the military that turned in a completed survey.
It also doesn't directly ask if military members enjoy getting shot at or not. It also doesn't ask them whether schools should only teach evolution or whether they should teach the controversy.It's also worth noting that out of 103 questions on that survey, not one actually bothered to ask directly about repealing DADT.
It wasn't meant to answer those questions. What it was meant to answer was if DADT was repealed how would the military's effectiveness be affected and the overwhelming answer is little to none.
No it's the republicans being blinded by their own bias and their need to deny Democrats any sort of victory.This is just politicians on both sides using the military to promote agenda, while nearly completely ignoring the very people it will impact.
#13
Chibibar
Chibibar
I think it is more simple (in my mind) than that. The republican doesn't want to be be "blamed" for the "fall" of their society. They don't want to recognize that same sex should have same rights (again that is what I think they are doing) and trying to stall as long as possible. It is interesting that U.S. promotes "free speech and rights of the people" but can't give the same rights if they are different sexual orientation. (well... more like same benefits really) well...... I'll get off my soap box now.No it's the republicans being blinded by their own bias and their need to deny Democrats any sort of victory.
#14
Krisken
Krisken
I think Chibi has it there. If they vote for the removal of DADT, they are promoting to the social conservatives they are willing to bend on those issues. The Religious right is an awful strong force for the Republicans.
#15
Chibibar
I am sure the Pope of the Catholic church (which is one of the more popular religion) wouldn't sanction same sex marriage under his dogma. Heck, until this year, contraceptive (condoms) are "being" consider at this time........ I would say another 100 years (a number I pulled out of my butt) now other religious beliefs are really really really against same sex. I don't know why.
So I feel that the republican will not vote for this for they fear it will open a floodgate of other "sinful" ideals. Once the federal government accepts AND protect people of same sex orientation, then the next logical step is allow them to have same access to public benefits to all other hetro couple are getting in the U.S. on the Federal level.
Chibibar
Really REALLY strong. I know the U.S. are suppose to be "Freedom of religion" but majority of the religion "believes" that homosexuality is bad. Why do I think this? Look at the major turn out for a simple recognition of same sex marriage. The "popular" vote of many states support anti-same sex marriage. To me, that is wrong, but alas, we are a minority. Maybe in another generation or two, such ideas will be accepted.I think Chibi has it there. If they vote for the removal of DADT, they are promoting to the social conservatives they are willing to bend on those issues. The Religious right is an awful strong force for the Republicans.
I am sure the Pope of the Catholic church (which is one of the more popular religion) wouldn't sanction same sex marriage under his dogma. Heck, until this year, contraceptive (condoms) are "being" consider at this time........ I would say another 100 years (a number I pulled out of my butt) now other religious beliefs are really really really against same sex. I don't know why.
So I feel that the republican will not vote for this for they fear it will open a floodgate of other "sinful" ideals. Once the federal government accepts AND protect people of same sex orientation, then the next logical step is allow them to have same access to public benefits to all other hetro couple are getting in the U.S. on the Federal level.