Marine Corps Chief: 'Distraction' of Gays Serving Openly Could Cost Marines Limbs

[Gerald]

WASHINGTON -- Using graphic imagery and his strongest language to date, the new Marine Corps commandant spoke out again Tuesday against a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, this time suggesting that a change in the law would risk maiming Marines because of the "distraction." In a background briefing with a handful of Pentagon reporters, Gen. James Amos said a repeal of the law that bans gays from openly serving could prove to be a life-threatening distraction for combat Marines. Fox News was not invited to the briefing, but the military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" provided an audio recording.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...marines-limbs/


Note: Published December 14, 2010

[Platapus]

So the homosexuals currently in the Marine Corps are not a distraction, but homosexuals in the Marine Corps after the repeal of DADT will be a distraction?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Vendor

WASHINGTON -- Using graphic imagery and his strongest language to date, the new Marine Corps commandant spoke out again Tuesday against a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, this time suggesting that a change in the law would risk maiming Marines because of the "distraction." In a background briefing with a handful of Pentagon reporters, Gen. James Amos said a repeal of the law that bans gays from openly serving could prove to be a life-threatening distraction for combat Marines. Fox News was not invited to the briefing, but the military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" provided an audio recording.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...marines-limbs/

Bull****.

[DarkFish]

Well, it's the US of A. Whaddya expect?

[TLAM Strike]

Any Marine so easily distracted over the fact that is squad mate prefers someone with a penis rather than a vagina in their bed (or vice versa) should not be a Marine.

[the_tyrant]

You know, most of us usually grow out of the homophobe stage before we graduate from high school

I personally have nothing against a gay guy fighting alongside me.

[Skybird]

I wonder if no ask-no tell gets abandoned, if this means that women serving in the military will be allowed to shower together with the guys and lie side by side with them in crew quarters?!

The purpose of no ask-no tell was not to prevent gays serving. Obviuoosuly it allows them to serve, and they do. The simple purpose is to avoid unnecessary "complications" and "irritations" amongst the vast majority of troops not being gay.

I wonder why in a country that is so prudish that you are expected to wear bathers even in the Sauna and Nipplegate makes it into the headline of the national news, this simple thing must be explained!? There is a reason why women and men serving in the military usually are kept seperate, regarding certain intimate details of life in the military, and it has something to do with sexuality and preferences (hear hear...). But with gay men and hetereo men, this all of a sudden is not valid argument anymore...? Being politically correct is all nice and well, but when it comes at the cost of ignoring realities, then it becomes anything but "correct" in a meaning of reasonability.

[Platapus]

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." Barry Goldwater

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I wonder if no ask-no tell gets abandoned, if this means that women serving in the military will be allowed to shower together with the guys and lie side by side with them in crew quarters?!

The purpose of no ask-no tell was not to prevent gays serving. Obviuoosuly it allows them to serve, and they do. The simple purpose is to avoid unnecessary "complications" and "irritations" amongst the vast majority of troops not being gay.

I wonder why in a country that is so prudish that you are expected to wear bathers even in the Sauna and Nipplegate makes it into the headline of the national news, this simple thing must be explained!? There is a reason why women and men serving in the military usually are kept seperate, regarding certain intimate details of life in the military, and it has something to do with sexuality and preferences (hear hear...). But with gay men and hetereo men, this all of a sudden is not valid argument anymore...? Being politically correct is all nice and well, but when it comes at the cost of ignoring realities, then it becomes anything but "correct" in a meaning of reasonability.

Well said Skybird.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Platapus

So the homosexuals currently in the Marine Corps are not a distraction, but homosexuals in the Marine Corps after the repeal of DADT will be a distraction?

i think the valid portion of any argument for DODT is that homosexuals openly serving in the military will be at risk of mistreatment, beatings, hazing and even murder.

a man who likes to rub on penises absorbs machine gun fire just as good as a man who doesnt like to run on penises IMHO

the problem is that you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of young men some of whom may retaliate against homosexuals violently perhaps without consideration to the consequences.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I wonder if no ask-no tell gets abandoned, if this means that women serving in the military will be allowed to shower together with the guys and lie side by side with them in crew quarters?!

The purpose of no ask-no tell was not to prevent gays serving. Obviuoosuly it allows them to serve, and they do. The simple purpose is to avoid unnecessary "complications" and "irritations" amongst the vast majority of troops not being gay.

I wonder why in a country that is so prudish that you are expected to wear bathers even in the Sauna and Nipplegate makes it into the headline of the national news, this simple thing must be explained!? There is a reason why women and men serving in the military usually are kept seperate, regarding certain intimate details of life in the military, and it has something to do with sexuality and preferences (hear hear...). But with gay men and hetereo men, this all of a sudden is not valid argument anymore...? Being politically correct is all nice and well, but when it comes at the cost of ignoring realities, then it becomes anything but "correct" in a meaning of reasonability.

This.

[Tessa]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

i think the valid portion of any argument for DODT is that homosexuals openly serving in the military will be at risk of mistreatment, beatings, hazing and even murder.

a man who likes to rub on penises absorbs machine gun fire just as good as a man who doesnt like to run on penises IMHO

the problem is that you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of young men some of whom may retaliate against homosexuals violently perhaps without consideration to the consequences.

Even though society has largely become more receptive to homosexual relationships, they have already been labeled by society. Sociologically once you attach a label to a group of people it generally will stick with them forever.

The DODT is actually protecting them from becoming at risk. If that information were to come out into the open I concur that there woulc probably be a lot of hazing/retaliations against the gay servicemen regardless of their quality of duty. While it's oppressive in nature, I believe the DODT is the only good way to deal with the situation.

[Penguin]

The argument of protection, which I believe you two guys mean honestly, is also used as a strawman argument to hide the intentions to keep people out of the military.

I am pretty sure that this argument was also used when blacks were allowed to join the armed forces: "Oh, we gotta protect them from racism"

60 years ago at some boot camp:
"Hi my name is Bill and I'm black!"
- "Sorry guy, you have to leave the military, we have a strict don't ask, don't tell policy!"

[mookiemookie]

22 out of 26 NATO countries allow gays to openly serve in the military. All of the handwringing and objections have already been handled by these countries. You don't read about beatings being handed down to gay Australian or German troops, or Israeli soldiers being distracted because one of their squadmates happens to be gay.

Distractions causing soldiers to lose limbs? Who's going to be so worried about the gay man behind them that they get their legs blown off? That's about one of the stupidest and nonsensical things I've ever heard. And I hang out in GT.

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

The argument of protection, which I believe you two guys mean honestly, is also used as a strawman argument to hide the intentions to keep people out of the military.

I am pretty sure that this argument was also used when blacks were allowed to join the armed forces: "Oh, we gotta protect them from racism"

60 years ago at some boot camp:
"Hi my name is Bill and I'm black!"
- "Sorry guy, you have to leave the military, we have a strict don't ask, don't tell policy!"

Let's not get into comparing blacks with homosexuals. Race is not at all the same thing as sexual orientation. That said I don't buy the violence against gays argument. Soldiers are expected to have more self discipline than that.