I read in the paper this morning an AP story about the head of the Marines, who had been a very outspoken critic of the idea of integrating openly gay marines into service. He was adamantly against it. Today he stated that his concerns were completely unfounded and there have been absolutely NO problems with marines being open about their sexuality. He actually said he had been WRONG!

This is a brave man, to publicly state that he was wrong about this issue. I admire anyone who can publicly say they were wrong. Of course, he must have known that there have been gay marines as long as there have been marines. But kudos to him...

Now I find this fascinating. 25 people read this and not one person commented. Am I wrong in saying that this is a brave man or is it that you think he is wrong on the issue and therefore disappointed that he said what he did? I am guessing you think he is wrong on the issue.

I read it and agree with you on the respect that ought to be had for people changing their stance when seeing good reason to do that. That's why I don't agree with people who mock the presidential candidates for being "flip floppers" on certain policies. Also, I know people who have had major turning points and total 180 turn in direction in their personal lives, and their conversion to cleaner living is authentic.

My only thought about the Marine's statement is he concluded there are no problems with the openly gay policy when really, very little time has passed since the policy change.

Time-tested policies are a good thing, I think.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

I read it and agree with you on the respect that ought to be had for people changing their stance when seeing good reason to do that. That's why I don't agree with people who mock the presidential candidates for being "flip floppers" on certain policies. Also, I know people who have had major turning points and total 180 turn in direction in their personal lives, and their conversion to cleaner living is authentic.

My only thought about the Marine's statement is he concluded there are no problems with the openly gay policy when really, very little time has passed since the policy change.

Time-tested policies are a good thing, I think.

I agree....you should be able to change your mind when presented with new information without being called a flip flopper.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

I read it and agree with you on the respect that ought to be had for people changing their stance when seeing good reason to do that. That's why I don't agree with people who mock the presidential candidates for being "flip floppers" on certain policies. Also, I know people who have had major turning points and total 180 turn in direction in their personal lives, and their conversion to cleaner living is authentic.

My only thought about the Marine's statement is he concluded there are no problems with the openly gay policy when really, very little time has passed since the policy change.

Time-tested policies are a good thing, I think.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

I agree....you should be able to change your mind when presented with new information without being called a flip flopper.

You are right ladydoc, he is courageous to come out and openly admit he was wrong and face hostility from many. You are both right about the "flip-flop" issue, although there are some who do change their public stance simply to garner favor from voters or partisans of an issue. It baffles me that many people will argue vehemently on a given side of an issue, apparently hoping to change the hearts and minds of people with whom they disagree, then label anyone they may have influenced to change position a "flip-flopper", or without any true conviction . Oh well, trying to understand how or why human beings function is well beyond my intellectual capacity.

There is nothing wrong in changing your mind on an issue - any issue. It shows a certain level of maturity and even an evolving position based on life exeriences. Nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong is when a pol takes a stand on an issue before a certain group of folks, and then takes a different stand on the same issue with a different group of folks. That is a flopper.

Those who are keeping quiet on this are the ones who booed that US Marine at one of the Republican debate because of his orientation.

There are always many facets to a story. I think he was doing the right thing both then and now.

"Looking back, Amos said he had no regrets about publicly opposing repeal during wartime. He said he had felt obliged, as commandant of the Corps, to set aside his personal opinions and represent the views of the 56 percent of combat Marines who told a Defense Department survey last year that repeal could make them less effective and cohesive in combat."

http://news.yahoo.com/top-marine-fea...203204250.html

Originally Posted by ilovetv

There are always many facets to a story. I think he was doing the right thing both then and now.



http://news.yahoo.com/top-marine-fea...203204250.html

Absolutely...a brave man to say all this publicly. We need some folks like him in congress.

What choice did he have? The train seemed to have left the station already whether liked or not.

being a high ranking general he is in the political stream, like it or not.

He did what he had to do to represent to the corps the order of the day....and keep his job!

Hence we will never know if he really changed his mind or not. His public statement does not have to equate to changing his mind.

btk

I am a 22 year Army vet and I have a problem with openly Gay, but then I have a problem with men and women fighting side by side in combat. Their are roles for women and Gay soldiers, but not on the battle Field. If its OK for gay and straight men to shower together, why is it not OK for men and women to shower together?????????????????? If you are a gay male, in my opinion, you are more woman than man therefore, should be treated more like a women than a man.

If this is the Marine who published an article concerning against repealing DADT because of its devasting effects in the Wall Street Journal about a year ago then, yes I am totally surprised because his rationale was sound.

I am in agreement with those posters who believe this change is yet "time tested" and /or this Marine had to fall in line or he would have been sent packing. As we use to say in the military when your asked to do something "volunteer".

Brave man??? Savvy more like it.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I am a 22 year Army vet and I have a problem with openly Gay, but then I have a problem with men and women fighting side by side in combat. Their are roles for women and Gay soldiers, but not on the battle Field. If its OK for gay and straight men to shower together, why is it not OK for men and women to shower together?????????????????? If you are a gay male, in my opinion, you are more woman than man therefore, should be treated more like a women than a man.

Saying a gay man is more like a woman then a man is pretty out there thinking. Gay men are not defined by their sexuality anymore then you are.

Because you prefer woman do you lust and after and make advances to every woman you see? I would guess not. Believe it or not, gay men are not attracted at EVERY man they see. If you were in the military you have already showered with gay men. I think the gay professional sports figures would disagree about them being more like women then men. You say this only because the gay men you have met are NOT blatant stereotypes.

Originally Posted by rubicon

If this is the Marine who published an article concerning against repealing DADT because of its devasting effects in the Wall Street Journal about a year ago then, yes I am totally surprised because his rationale was sound.

I am in agreement with those posters who believe this change is yet "time tested" and /or this Marine had to fall in line or he would have been sent packing. As we use to say in the military when your asked to do something "volunteer".

Brave man??? Savvy more like it.

I guess time will tell.....

Originally Posted by coralway

There is nothing wrong in changing your mind on an issue - any issue. It shows a certain level of maturity and even an evolving position based on life exeriences. Nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong is when a pol takes a stand on an issue before a certain group of folks, and then takes a different stand on the same issue with a different group of folks. That is a flopper.

Those who are keeping quiet on this are the ones who booed that US Marine at one of the Republican debate because of his orientation.

You think it's his orientation that people were booing....while maybe they didn't post here because they had nothing to ADD to the first post.....and so you stereotype everyone conservative here as being homophobic, when that is not the case.

When that gay soldier started to speak on the big screen during the debate, nobody in the audience made so much as a peep when he said, "and I am a gay soldier". Not one sound in the pause between sentences. Then he continued on, asking Santorum if during his presidency, he would "circumvent the progress that has been made for gays in the military". Only then did one or two people start to boo. It was the idea of "circumventing" the policy now in place that drew the boos, not necessarily the fact that he said he was a gay soldier.

It is a huge stretch of the imagination to assume that every GOPer there and here can't stand this soldier's "orientation". A future president willing to "circumvent" the current policy is what sends up red flags to thinking people on both sides.