• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

Top US Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban


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?"

Conway's public rejection of his commander-in-chief's stance is sure to fuel debate in Congress on the issue and reflects apprehension among some senior military officers about changing the 1993 law.

The chiefs of the US Army and Air Force also expressed doubts about lifting the ban at congressional hearings this week, saying they were concerned about putting the military under further strain in the midst of two wars.
 
Just curious... is that a general discharge, or does that refer to something else?

"other than honorable" and a general discharge are two different things.

A general discharge would be issued in a case like where a person can't, no matter how hard they try, lose weight to meet the height/weight standard, or they couldn't pass their PT test, again, no matter how hard they tried.

Other than honrable is when you **** up, but you don't **** up bad. Anyone else that decieved the military would recieve a dishonorable, but gays receive an other than honorable, because they didn't really lie, as no one asked them if they were gay. But, they can't receive a general, or even an honorable, because they enlisted understanding that gays are banned from the military.
 
That is precisely what you are saying when you say that our servicemen cannot work with gays successfully. Civilians can handle it, as can other military's. Sounds like you do not think much of our troops.

The British army issues whiskey to their soldiers, while in the field, too. I don't think that would work in the United States army.
 
Wouldn't it be funny if these two generals turned out to be gay?
 
The British army issues whiskey to their soldiers, while in the field, too. I don't think that would work in the United States army.

Is this anything like navy beer days? WE seemed to handle them. I bet we could handle being issues whiskey as well. Why do you have such a low opinion of our troops?
 
I joined to post on this subject.

I have not served but my Boyfriend has spent 12 years in the military.(I actually signed up here with his information so he might post later) Anyways I have talked to him about this and I agree with what he has to say.


I agree with him that if people who are openly gay can serve then women and men can all live with each other. All showers, bath rooms, training rooms, etc can be used by anyone at any time.If a man wants to take a shower he can go right in and shower with all the women, anytime he wants to. There should be no signs anywhere pointing out that we have two sexes. All signs should be "humans shower here" etc.

Why would it be ok that women have a problem with showering with men but straight men cant have a problem with showering with gay men. I know my boyfriend would LOVE to shower with some of the women he works with. I would NOT like it at all! :(

If sexual orientation should not be a factor for gay folks then there should be no factor on anyones sex at all. I agree, now, after he explained himself to me that it would be rough to shower with a guy you just heard talking about his boyfriend and his ripped abs if I were a man.

To me this makes alot of sense, maybe to you it doesn't but it seems to be why my boyfriend and his buddies are not for this at all.

If I don't make alot of sense I'm sorry, I got woke up by the dogs and couldn't go back to sleep, I'm still a bit groggy.

Excellent post.......you make a lot of sense and your right.......I could not have said it better:applaud

welcome you or your BF to DP.....Looking forward to your input and thank your BF for his service..........
 
Top US Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban


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?"

Conway's public rejection of his commander-in-chief's stance is sure to fuel debate in Congress on the issue and reflects apprehension among some senior military officers about changing the 1993 law.

The chiefs of the US Army and Air Force also expressed doubts about lifting the ban at congressional hearings this week, saying they were concerned about putting the military under further strain in the midst of two wars.

This is just the tip of the iceburg no matter what our left wing friends say............
 
Is this anything like navy beer days? WE seemed to handle them. I bet we could handle being issues whiskey as well. Why do you have such a low opinion of our troops?

You seem to be doing that a lot redress.....Just because someone disagrees with you on the issue does not mean they have a low opinion of our troops........That is totally out of line and you know it........
 
You seem to be doing that a lot redress.....Just because someone disagrees with you on the issue does not mean they have a low opinion of our troops........That is totally out of line and you know it........

When you suggest that the military cannot handle simple things that civilians can handle, then yes, you do have a low opinion of the military. I am not basing that simply on the position of the issue, but on the words of those who are suggesting that our military personnel cannot handle such simple things as handling a small amount of alcohol, or dealing with people that the rest of the country, and the rest of the world mostly handles.
 
When you suggest that the military cannot handle simple things that civilians can handle, then yes, you do have a low opinion of the military. I am not basing that simply on the position of the issue, but on the words of those who are suggesting that our military personnel cannot handle such simple things as handling a small amount of alcohol, or dealing with people that the rest of the country, and the rest of the world mostly handles.

Civilians and the military are different..........Things are much tougher in the military......I personally don't think there is no requirement our military can't handle, social experimenting withstanding, ........

Just cool it when you call people out that you don't even know......Like I said I am not the only one you have done it to............
 
Civilians and the military are different..........Things are much tougher in the military......I personally don't think there is no requirement our military can't handle, social experimenting withstanding, ........

Just cool it when you call people out that you don't even know......Like I said I am not the only one you have done it to............

Things are tougher in the military, no doubt. Thankfully, our military people are up to those challenges. Raising a family amongst deployments and detachments is a challenge many civilians could not handle(and sadly some military spouses discover they cannot either). That is tough. Dealing with a gay guy/gal is not tough. In fact, it's trivial.
 
Things are tougher in the military, no doubt. Thankfully, our military people are up to those challenges. Raising a family amongst deployments and detachments is a challenge many civilians could not handle(and sadly some military spouses discover they cannot either). That is tough. Dealing with a gay guy/gal is not tough. In fact, it's trivial.

Only in the mind of a "feel Good Liberal" who can go home at night and look in the mirrror and say to her/him self.....Gee I am a great and wonderful person...I do some much good for my fellow man.......I am so understanding of their plight, never once thinking about the consequences and the people that type of thinking affects..........

Sad
 
I cannot believe I missed this. In amongst all the misrepresentations of gays, this little gem. Thanks aps for catching this.

We allow strait people to join based on taking advantage of the educational and healthcare opportunities, why would gays be any different. Hell, we advertise the educational opportunities afforded by the military. Why is it somehow now bad if gays get in on the GI bill?

Come on folks, lets try and use some logic here...

I understand WHY you missed it.

I would totally understand the individual hoping for education benefits. I realize that many servicemen join for just this reason. Hell...I made the point.

It was one of several. I have no problem listing the points and not talking kneejerk rhetoric. The question was asked what would some of the obstacles/problems be. Plain and simple...if you arent smart enough to see how a flamboyant homosexual in the military that joined to take advantage of those benefits might present a command problem...you simply arent smart enough to continue this conversation. But...I dont think thats the problem. Its not that you CANT get it...its that you REFUSE to see any point that might be counter to what you WANT.

I work with several very skilled, very professional therapists that happen to be gay and that DESPISE the flamboyant 'sissy' queeer. I can tell you that a good number of soldiers would more than despise that type of a person. I can tell you with certainty it would be a problem. it would impact good order and discipline. We are seeing more generals that ARENT politically driven that are now speaking up. So...you dont have to take my word for it...heck...I dont expect you to. Im simply telling you thjat from my 47 years of involvement with the military community, ending the DADT policy will be at the very least disruptive to our fighting force. The Commandant of the Marine Corps ageree. but of course...you know better.

I dont dance and Im not exactly a fan of 'tact'. These are REAL issues that would present REAL problems. Like it or not...I dont care. Im simply speaking truth.
 
Things are tougher in the military, no doubt. Thankfully, our military people are up to those challenges. Raising a family amongst deployments and detachments is a challenge many civilians could not handle(and sadly some military spouses discover they cannot either). That is tough. Dealing with a gay guy/gal is not tough. In fact, it's trivial.

Yes...Im sure from your vast amount of experience you know this.
 
I understand WHY you missed it.

I would totally understand the individual hoping for education benefits. I realize that many servicemen join for just this reason. Hell...I made the point.

It was one of several. I have no problem listing the points and not talking kneejerk rhetoric. The question was asked what would some of the obstacles/problems be. Plain and simple...if you arent smart enough to see how a flamboyant homosexual in the military that joined to take advantage of those benefits might present a command problem...you simply arent smart enough to continue this conversation. But...I dont think thats the problem. Its not that you CANT get it...its that you REFUSE to see any point that might be counter to what you WANT.

I work with several very skilled, very professional therapists that happen to be gay and that DESPISE the flamboyant 'sissy' queeer. I can tell you that a good number of soldiers would more than despise that type of a person. I can tell you with certainty it would be a problem. it would impact good order and discipline. We are seeing more generals that ARENT politically driven that are now speaking up. So...you dont have to take my word for it...heck...I dont expect you to. Im simply telling you thjat from my 47 years of involvement with the military community, ending the DADT policy will be at the very least disruptive to our fighting force. The Commandant of the Marine Corps ageree. but of course...you know better.

I dont dance and Im not exactly a fan of 'tact'. These are REAL issues that would present REAL problems. Like it or not...I dont care. Im simply speaking truth.

Flamboyant homosexuals are in the military now. Most are just responsible enough to keep that part of their life private.

You must not have a lot of faith in the men and women serving if you actually believe that repealing DADT will truly cause such a large problem in the military. Luckily I have more. I've seen all the chiefs and officers, and most of the jr. enlisted of a department work very hard fighting to try to keep two highly intelligent and motivated sailors in the Navy. They actually had several boards among the upper chain of command to discuss whether or not to discharge them. Unfortunately, the circumstances behind the discovery of them being gay was too much against them. Most of the department was sad to see them go. Everyone knew one of them was gay, he didn't really hide it. It just wasn't a big deal. The only other person I knew that got out for being gay was a girl who turned herself in. We did have more in my department and in other departments on the ship, but it just wasn't a big deal.

For the most part, I found that most of the sailors I've ever worked with don't really care if gays can serve openly or not. Now, I can't really speak for the other branches, but my husband was a Marine, and he says he could care less. He knew of at least one gay guy in his unit, but it really wasn't a big deal. According to him, as long as they can do their job and aren't trying to use the fact that they are gay to get some special privilege, then it doesn't matter to him.
 
Wouldn't it be funny if these two generals turned out to be gay?

Reminds me of what happened at Exodous International. Exodous International is an organization that claims that through Christian-based reparative therapy, they can help homosexuals to not act as homosexuals, but act as heterosexuals. Two of their founders and strong proponents, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, suddenly disappeared from the organization in 1979. When they were located, it was discovered that they had run off together to have a "life-committment" ceremony. By 2007, several other founding members had done something similar. I suppose they discovered that their organization had no credibility based on their own feelings and behaviors.
 
Reminds me of what happened at Exodous International. Exodous International is an organization that claims that through Christian-based reparative therapy, they can help homosexuals to not act as homosexuals, but act as heterosexuals. Two of their founders and strong proponents, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, suddenly disappeared from the organization in 1979. When they were located, it was discovered that they had run off together to have a "life-committment" ceremony. By 2007, several other founding members had done something similar. I suppose they discovered that their organization had no credibility based on their own feelings and behaviors.
My dad had some friends when I was growing up that tried exodus. Now one of them is a Minister at one of the biggest gay church's here in Dallas and the other is living life as a happy gay Christian.
 
My dad had some friends when I was growing up that tried exodus. Now one of them is a Minister at one of the biggest gay church's here in Dallas and the other is living life as a happy gay Christian.

Exodous International is laughable. More of their leaders/followers have gone on to apologize for that organization and to live their life, happily, as a homosexual, than I could shake a stick at. Just more evidence that reparative/conversion therapy is an unethical joke.
 
I joined to post on this subject.

I have not served but my Boyfriend has spent 12 years in the military.(I actually signed up here with his information so he might post later) Anyways I have talked to him about this and I agree with what he has to say.


I agree with him that if people who are openly gay can serve then women and men can all live with each other. All showers, bath rooms, training rooms, etc can be used by anyone at any time.If a man wants to take a shower he can go right in and shower with all the women, anytime he wants to. There should be no signs anywhere pointing out that we have two sexes. All signs should be "humans shower here" etc.

Why would it be ok that women have a problem with showering with men but straight men cant have a problem with showering with gay men. I know my boyfriend would LOVE to shower with some of the women he works with. I would NOT like it at all! :(

If sexual orientation should not be a factor for gay folks then there should be no factor on anyones sex at all. I agree, now, after he explained himself to me that it would be rough to shower with a guy you just heard talking about his boyfriend and his ripped abs if I were a man.

To me this makes alot of sense, maybe to you it doesn't but it seems to be why my boyfriend and his buddies are not for this at all.

If I don't make alot of sense I'm sorry, I got woke up by the dogs and couldn't go back to sleep, I'm still a bit groggy.

Thanks for taking the time to write a really thoughtful post. It's very much appreciated.

But allow me to make a comment...

Right now, your boyfriend may be showering with some gay service men and not know it. And not knowing it, it doesn't bother him at all, does it? So what's the difference really? That being aware of it makes any sort of difference?

It's a psychological phobia, really. If DADT was repealed, he'll still might be showering with those same people, but all of a sudden he feels uncomfortable about it? That doesn't make sense right?

When you get right down to it, it's really just homophobia.
 
I understand WHY you missed it.

I would totally understand the individual hoping for education benefits. I realize that many servicemen join for just this reason. Hell...I made the point.

It was one of several. I have no problem listing the points and not talking kneejerk rhetoric. The question was asked what would some of the obstacles/problems be. Plain and simple...if you arent smart enough to see how a flamboyant homosexual in the military that joined to take advantage of those benefits might present a command problem...you simply arent smart enough to continue this conversation. But...I dont think thats the problem. Its not that you CANT get it...its that you REFUSE to see any point that might be counter to what you WANT.

I work with several very skilled, very professional therapists that happen to be gay and that DESPISE the flamboyant 'sissy' queeer. I can tell you that a good number of soldiers would more than despise that type of a person. I can tell you with certainty it would be a problem. it would impact good order and discipline. We are seeing more generals that ARENT politically driven that are now speaking up. So...you dont have to take my word for it...heck...I dont expect you to. Im simply telling you thjat from my 47 years of involvement with the military community, ending the DADT policy will be at the very least disruptive to our fighting force. The Commandant of the Marine Corps ageree. but of course...you know better.

I dont dance and Im not exactly a fan of 'tact'. These are REAL issues that would present REAL problems. Like it or not...I dont care. Im simply speaking truth.

So tell me please, what difference is there between a flamboyant gay joining for benefits, and a macho strait guy? Why is it ok for one to do so, but not the other? The problem with your comments is that it assumes that somehow flamboyant gays are somehow corrupt and taking advantage, while the strait is not.

Oh, by the way, I am a vet, I do have some experience with what I am talking about.
 
So tell me please, what difference is there between a flamboyant gay joining for benefits, and a macho strait guy? Why is it ok for one to do so, but not the other? The problem with your comments is that it assumes that somehow flamboyant gays are somehow corrupt and taking advantage, while the strait is not.

Oh, by the way, I am a vet, I do have some experience with what I am talking about.

Like I said...you refuse to get it. You CANT be that stupid.

Its UNDERSTANDABLE they might weant to join for the benefits. I WAS the one that brought it up. But if you dont think that type of personality and characteristic would be in conflict in a military environment...

nah...you arent that stupid. So its deliberate.

Werent you the vet that joined and then got out in basic?

Look...I KNOW there are homosexuals that serve with honor. I have no problem with that. And I have no problem with homosexuals in general. I also have a good understanding of the military. I dont believe the two are compatible. And rather than give you some namby pamby dance about it...I unlike many others will simply tell you straight up WHY. I personally couldnt giuve a damn whether you agree or not. This is a discussion forum. Im not stupid enough to believe you or I or anyone here will be influencing policy. Ive given you my opinion. Its based on a lifetime of military experience. You on the other hand want it to be so...and so you will ignore the realities and problems. Thats fine too. Im not here to change your mind. I DONT CARE if you change your mind or not.
 
So tell me please, what difference is there between a flamboyant gay joining for benefits, and a macho strait guy? Why is it ok for one to do so, but not the other? The problem with your comments is that it assumes that somehow flamboyant gays are somehow corrupt and taking advantage, while the strait is not.

Oh, by the way, I am a vet, I do have some experience with what I am talking about.

I didnt see the response...Im sure I missed it...

Are homosexuals still currently prohibited from donating blood? STILL? Why is that? And what impact might that have in a combat field environment where people sweat together...bleed together...

Concerns. Problems. Ignore them...I dont care...it wont change facts.
 
I didnt see the response...Im sure I missed it...

Are homosexuals still currently prohibited from donating blood? STILL? Why is that? And what impact might that have in a combat field environment where people sweat together...bleed together...

Concerns. Problems. Ignore them...I dont care...it wont change facts.

Military is tested for HIV/AIDS every year and there are actually people in the military that have HIV/AIDS. They can only be stationed in certain places, but I do know that we had 2 at Pearl Harbor while I was there. We aren't allowed to know who they are, but obviously it's in their medical records.

Also, since gays are serving in the military anyway under DADT, isn't this a bad argument considering that technically you can't ask them that question. Also, wouldn't it be better for the military to know who is gay so that they can figure out if more frequent testing should be performed on certain servicemembers who prove to be in the higher risk groups so that it is detected faster? And you can't get HIV from sweating or even bleeding on someone, an actual fluid exchange has to happen. So a greater problem would come from if someone needed a blood transfusion who had a rare blood type. Although, if it were a ship that just left Thailand, the person is probably screwed anyway. I would be more worried about the guys that frequent whore houses in every foreign port we go to than the gay ones having HIV/AIDS.
 
Military is tested for HIV/AIDS every year and there are actually people in the military that have HIV/AIDS. They can only be stationed in certain places, but I do know that we had 2 at Pearl Harbor while I was there. We aren't allowed to know who they are, but obviously it's in their medical records.

Also, since gays are serving in the military anyway under DADT, isn't this a bad argument considering that technically you can't ask them that question. Also, wouldn't it be better for the military to know who is gay so that they can figure out if more frequent testing should be performed on certain servicemembers who prove to be in the higher risk groups so that it is detected faster? And you can't get HIV from sweating or even bleeding on someone, an actual fluid exchange has to happen. So a greater problem would come from if someone needed a blood transfusion who had a rare blood type. Although, if it were a ship that just left Thailand, the person is probably screwed anyway. I would be more worried about the guys that frequent whore houses in every foreign port we go to than the gay ones having HIV/AIDS.

1-Unless things have changed RADICALLY in the last few years, the military is NOT tested for HIV AIDS.

2-Its a POINT...a PROBLEM. If foer no other reason, there will be many who WILL think twice about providing life saving field first aid.

I GET that you want to gloss over every problem so that you can get what you want. It doesnt make it not a problem.

Homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood. WHY???
 
Like I said...you refuse to get it. You CANT be that stupid.

Its UNDERSTANDABLE they might weant to join for the benefits. I WAS the one that brought it up. But if you dont think that type of personality and characteristic would be in conflict in a military environment...

nah...you arent that stupid. So its deliberate.

Werent you the vet that joined and then got out in basic?

Look...I KNOW there are homosexuals that serve with honor. I have no problem with that. And I have no problem with homosexuals in general. I also have a good understanding of the military. I dont believe the two are compatible. And rather than give you some namby pamby dance about it...I unlike many others will simply tell you straight up WHY. I personally couldnt giuve a damn whether you agree or not. This is a discussion forum. Im not stupid enough to believe you or I or anyone here will be influencing policy. Ive given you my opinion. Its based on a lifetime of military experience. You on the other hand want it to be so...and so you will ignore the realities and problems. Thats fine too. Im not here to change your mind. I DONT CARE if you change your mind or not.

You brought up gays and taking advantage of military benefits. You tied the two together so that it somehow wrong for gays to join for the benefits. You have yet to explain why gays joining for the benefits is any different than straits joining for the benefits. You simply resort to ad hominem as if that makes your point.

You have not shown how gays would disrupt the service(hint: they do not now). You have not shown why those in the service would not be able to handle what the rest of the country, and other militaries handle trivially. You have not, in point of fact, made any point at all beyond you don't like gays. That is your failure.

You have managed to attempt to suggest that I did not complete my service, which is a flat out lie. I did 6 years and got out honorably at the end of my enlistment. You could easily figure that out since the award is next to every post I make. You will, please, not try and suggest otherwise again.
 
Back
Top Bottom