Posted on 10/29/2010 10:19:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A majority of active-duty and reserve service members surveyed by the Defense Department would not object to serving and living alongside openly gay troops, according to multiple people familiar with the findings.
The survey's results are expected to be included in a Pentagon report, due to President Obama on Dec. 1, regarding how the military would end enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving in uniform.
Some troops surveyed - but not a majority - objected strongly to the idea of serving with gays and said they would quit the military if the policy changed, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly share details of the survey.
Defense Department officials did not respond to requests for comment.
NBC News first reported Thursday evening on the survey's findings.
In July, the Pentagon sent a survey with dozens of questions to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops. It asked whether they had ever shared a room or the showers with gay peers, and how they might act if a gay service member lived with a same-sex partner on base.
Military officials did not say how many troops completed the survey, but at least 103,000 had done so just days before it was due, according to the Pentagon. A similar survey was later sent to military spouses.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
That was pricisely my point. To decide otherwise would have me refusing ammo from the gay guy. The person posting was refering to God being next to them in battle. My point is that God is part of the bigger picture beyond who’s passing ammo.
At a March 18 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, two former service members who had been discharged for homosexuality focused their testimony on their own personal stories. The third witness, retired Marine General John Sheehan, came across as a credible grown-up with more serious concerns on his mind.
Having served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and as Commander-in-Chief for the U.S. Atlantic Command (1994-1997), Gen. Sheehan was uniquely qualified to provide strong testimony that weakened the claims of civilian gay activists who want America’s military to be more like European forces.
Referring to the military officials from nations that Sheehan led as NATO commander, Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) asked whether the general had discussed the issue with them. “Did they tell you that they had unit cohesion or morale problems?” Much to Levin’s surprise, Sheehan answered “Yes” and proceeded to provide details.
After the Soviet Union dissolved, Sheehan said, European nations began focusing on peacekeeping because “they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and other European nations came to believe that there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries. “They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military - that included the unionization of their militaries; it included open homosexuality.”
He continued,
“That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I am referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the [Bosnian] Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II.” 1
Chairman Levin asked whether Dutch leaders had told the general that the inclusion of homosexuals had contributed to the military debacle. Unlike some news reports’ descriptions, Gen. Sheehan chose his words carefully, saying that commanders he had spoken to “included that as part of the problem…. [T]he combination was the liberalization of the military, a net effect, basically of social engineering.” 2
http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=378
“My point is that God is part of the bigger picture beyond who’s passing ammo.”
It is not the passing of ammo we are discussing here. YOU reduced it to that. God OWNS the Big Picture so He can quibble all He wants on the “minor” stuff. Which is His point (and should be ours): It isn’t minor if He has spoken against it.
In other words, more than 50% would follow orders. Good to hear that they would not oppose military orders. So what?
More propaganda cloaked in "fact" derived by survey questions that mean one thing and dressed up assumed interpretation with commentary...
The fact is those that choose to engage in homosexual sex are disordered... No survey needed.
that is just out and out B/S
As a vet and still have friends serving then I can honestly say that there is hardly anyone who wants openly serving homosexuals, hell in our combat units we don’t even want homosexuals at all.
I take it that there were unnamed sources in this article, no direct proof combat troops were asked etc
I concluded long ago that the term "homophobia" was developed by leftists. Since I am not a useful idiot the term is not a legitimate part of my vocabulary...
I give the liars no accommodation...
the article is B/S and as a vet who still has serving friends then they think it;s B/S too.
Shall we let men in who like to have sex with animals too because they can shoot a gun.
utter crap,
I say this for the majority of guys I have served with around the world.
We don’;t want homosexual serving at all
The correct term is HOMOSEXUAL...
They did not allow men practicing sodomy in the military at that time.
In fact, at that time every state had laws against it, with varying severe punishments.
Are you just plain ignorant or what?
they’re pushing this homo crap so much as they know this is their last chance before sanity restores Govt.
We’re talking about men wanting sex with other men and some seem to not think about that.
There’s nothing frigging normal or natural about it.
It;s sick plain and simple
IOW, you are ignorant about the nature of homosexuality and the agenda. The official Libertarian Party platform is pro-”gay” agenda, so I guess you’re on board with that.
Dh just retired after twenty-something yrs. Semper fidelis to the Corps as a whole, but the USMC today is being infiltrated by libs carrying so much pc-ness, I’m surprised those little ditty’s have seemed to slip past them. Before you know it though, it’ll be “Papa & Papa were lyin’ in bed,...”
Dh just retired after twenty-something yrs. Semper fidelis to the Corps as a whole, but the USMC today is being infiltrated by libs carrying so much pc-ness, I’m surprised those little ditty’s have seemed to slip past them. Before you know it though, it’ll be “Papa & Papa were lyin’ in bed,...”
I read the rest of the article at the link you provided.
Thank you.
Exactly.
First of all a phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear.
Individually, I have no fear of homosexuals. However, the militant homosexual agenda is quite dangerous just as every other facet of the leftist agenda is.
Therefore, I do not consider the fear that the left will succeed in their agenda to be an irrational one, so it cannot be described as a phobia.
right from the queer handbook.
you have never served have you?
You know nothing about the military so let me make this clear for you.
Homosexuality, it is not normal nor is it natural.
Nor should they even serve in the military.
I’ll tell you this if one homo eevr looked at me in the shower or made an advance then he will not be making that mistake again .
BTW That goes for all the guys I have served with too or who are serving right now.
As one guy said last week to me.
If they ever let queers openly serve then I have no problem letting my feelings be known to them too.
Polls be damned - the “proof of the pudding” will be recruitment/retention rates should they go forward with these idiotic plans.
I don’t believe this for a second.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.