Most troops wouldn't oppose serving with gays

foundit66 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 02:04 AM

Quote:

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.

Most troops wouldn't oppose serving with gays

But don't worry.
Some people still think we should still cater to the minority that doesn't want to work with a minority group they don't like.

cnredd · #2 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 02:19 AM

Quote:

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.

"Some" is a horrible way to report a survey...

It's "not a majority", but 5% is a helluva difference from 42%...and we don't even know how close either of these answers are...

The report is due December 1st...WaPo should've waited until then so they have concrete numbers instead of this "some" crap...

foundit66 · #3 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

"Some" is a horrible way to report a survey...
It's "not a majority", but 5% is a helluva difference from 42%...and we don't even know how close either of these answers are...
The report is due December 1st...WaPo should've waited until then so they have concrete numbers instead of this "some" crap...

So what's your margin?

At what percentage are you willing to say "I know they are a minority who can't work around gays, but we're going to cater to them anyways instead of doing the usual military thing of telling them to do their ****ing job..."

Do you think when blacks were integrated, they had a majority approval from the troops?
Or is it just that you're more opposing anti-black racism, while your opposition to anti-gay homophobia is more relaxed...

Republicans. Routinely wanting a majority to be respected when it agrees with them.
Don't give a crap about the majority when it doesn't...

cnredd · #4 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

So what's your margin?

At what percentage are you willing to say "I know they are a minority who can't work around gays, but we're going to cater to them anyways instead of doing the usual military thing of telling them to do their ****ing job..."

Do you think when blacks were integrated, they had a majority approval from the troops?
Or is it just that you're more opposing anti-black racism, while your opposition to anti-gay homophobia is more relaxed...

Having "minority approval" is DIFFERENT from "quitting the military"...

In a 2 million strong military, if 5% of those surveyed quit "if the policy is changed", that's a decrease of 100,000...The military may or may not be able to absorb that loss...

But if 42% of those surveyed quit "if the policy is changed", that's a decrease of 840,000...There's NO CHANCE the military can deal with a loss such as that, and our NATIONAL SECURITY would be seriously jeopardized...

That's what I'm concerned with...Make you're own sh*t up and piss off the members with your personal attacks (relaxed opposition to anti-gay homophobia

), but that's not going to make my reasoning any different...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Republicans. Routinely wanting a majority to be respected when it agrees with them.
Don't give a crap about the majority when it doesn't...

I've made my case...which had nothing to do with party affiliation or ideology...

Even if you think I'm wrong great...but the angle of thinking so simply because of "Republicanism" is an insult...

This is why I respond to your posts once and then tend to walk away...The foundit I knew a coupe of years ago was much more resonable...

762nato · #5 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Most troops wouldn't oppose serving with gays

But don't worry.
Some people still think we should still cater to the minority that doesn't want to work with a minority group they don't like.

Homosexuals are not a minority group tantamount to African Americans. To say so trivializes the struggle for civil rights of the 1960's. Homosexuals have a right to be homosexual if they choose, but are not a systematically oppressed minority as Blacks were prior to the 1960's.

Homosexuals are a group of mentally ill people who seem to think they are born homosexual when it is a choice they make to pursue that sexual proclivity. There is no scientific genetic study that isolates a "gay" gene. If there was FI66 and other homosexuals would be trumpeting it. There may be a bogus study that might imply the existence of such a gene with no scientific verification.

Homosexuals in the military would be highly disruptive to unit cohesion. If the ban on them were lifted many would join the military to have gay parties in the barracks. Individually they wouldn't last long because most homosexuals are not emotionally stable enough to go through the military training process. The result of this would be a decline in enlistment and re-enlistment by those with a normal sexual preference. No normal heterosexual would want to be showering with homosexuals.

alan · #6 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Having "minority approval" is DIFFERENT from "quitting the military"...

In a 2 million strong military, if 5% of those surveyed quit "if the policy is changed", that's a decrease of 100,000...The military may or may not be able to absorb that loss...

But if 42% of those surveyed quit "if the policy is changed", that's a decrease of 840,000...There's NO CHANCE the military can deal with a loss such as that, and our NATIONAL SECURITY would be seriously jeopardized...

That's what I'm concerned with...Make you're own sh*t up and piss off the members with your personal attacks (relaxed opposition to anti-gay homophobia

), but that's not going to make my reasoning any different...

I've made my case...which had nothing to do with party affiliation or ideology...

Even if you think I'm wrong great...but the angle of thinking so simply because of "Republicanism" is an insult...

This is why I respond to your posts once and then tend to walk away...The foundit I knew a coupe of years ago was much more resonable...

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie

YouTube - Randy Houser - Whistlin' Dixie

foundit66 · #7 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Having "minority approval" is DIFFERENT from "quitting the military"...
In a 2 million strong military, if 5% of those surveyed quit "if the policy is changed", that's a decrease of 100,000...The military may or may not be able to absorb that loss...
But if 42% of those surveyed quit "if the policy is changed", that's a decrease of 840,000...There's NO CHANCE the military can deal with a loss such as that, and our NATIONAL SECURITY would be seriously jeopardized...

If you think 42% of the military, or anywhere near that, will quit the military cause gays are there, you're deluding yourself.

News Flash.
GAYS ARE ALREADY IN THE MILITARY!
So anybody who wants to quit just cause gays are in the military?
They should have left a long time ago...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

That's what I'm concerned with...Make you're own sh*t up and piss off the members with your personal attacks (relaxed opposition to anti-gay homophobia

), but that's not going to make my reasoning any different...

"making my own sh*t up"?

What did I supposedly make up?

Do you know the circumstances under which the military racial desegregation took place?
Did we spend a lot of time to ensure that the racists in the military wouldn't throw a hissy fit over having to serve along-side a white person?

If you label "relaxed opposition to anti-gay homophobia" as a personal attack, how the heck do you classify accusing people of worshipping Obama?
Oh wait.
THOSE ACTUAL personal attacks, you don't give a flying crap about...

If you want to give a better label for it, I'm all ears.

But quite frankly, I suspect the point was more to claim offense without actually having a point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

I've made my case...which had nothing to do with party affiliation or ideology...

I'm simply pointing out a common thread amongst Republicans.

Not claiming it's the cause, but it is a demonstratable common thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

This is why I respond to your posts once and then tend to walk away...The foundit I knew a coupe of years ago was much more resonable...

Dude?
If you actually had to experience real discrimination instead of listening to people criticize religion, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to refuse to understand.

You talk about "42% quitting the military" cause gays are there?
But gays are already there...

Don't let logic get in the way of a bad opinion...

foundit66 · #8 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 762nato

Homosexuals are not a minority group tantamount to African Americans. To say so trivializes the struggle for civil rights of the 1960's. Homosexuals have a right to be homosexual if they choose, but are not a systematically oppressed minority as Blacks were prior to the 1960's.

You don't even understand what "minority" means, otherwise you would never even try to claim gays aren't a minority group.

And this absurd claim that gays aren't "systematically oppressed" is just plain absurd.
Laws preventing gays from adopting.
Laws preventing gays from serving in the military.
Laws preventing legal recognition of gay couples.

And stretching back into history to times when we were MORE systematically oppressed, we have laws which said our very sex was illegal.
Laws which stated it was illegal to serve a homosexual a drink.
Employment discrimination against gays. Violence against gays.
Marginalized and slurred with rabid abuse.
Systematic even to the extent of claiming gays were mentally ill.
And you refuse to admit this is systematic oppression?

Or is it more to the point that you SUPPORT such oppression, as demonstrated by your next comments ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 762nato

Homosexuals are a group of mentally ill people who seem to think they are born homosexual when it is a choice they make to pursue that sexual proclivity. There is no scientific genetic study that isolates a "gay" gene.

I don't know what it is with some people who seem to think "If there isn't ABSOLUTE PROOF that being gay is genetic, then it must be a choice" is somehow a logical approach.
It isn't.

There are a variety of non-genetic (and non-choice) options which are out there, including environmental effects like the environment of a mother's womb.

But for some reason, people like you seem to think "prove it's genetic, otherwise that means it has to be choice".
Perhaps we should challenge "prove it's a choice, otherwise that proves it's genetic".

The truth is that not even the anti-gay "experts" claim it is a choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 762nato

Homosexuals in the military would be highly disruptive to unit cohesion.

And yet, we CURRENTLY have gays serving in the military.
MANY military member know people they serve alongside are gay, and they don't care.

OTHER COUNTRIES allow gays to serve openly in the military, and they do just fine.
This claim of "highly disruptive" is grotesquely exaggerated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 762nato

If the ban on them were lifted many would join the military to have gay parties in the barracks.

My GAWD the ignorance some people readily display...

If you think gays would join an organization which PUTS THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, just for the possibility of "gay parties in the barracks"????

You display your fears on your sleeve, and it's painfully obvious to anybody who thinks about it (or actually knows what gay people are like) that your comments are ridiculous.

foundit66 · #9 (**permalink**) 10-31-2010, 09:55 PM

Quote:

The stories of Woods and other black veterans who served among the military's first desegregated units during the Korean conflict may bear lessons at a time when Americans are debating an end to "don't ask, don't tell." The 1993 policy that bars gays from serving openly in uniform has been challenged by a federal court and President Barack Obama and is under review by the Pentagon.

Though the military may now seem to lag behind America's acceptance of gays in civilian life, the armed forces led the charge in ending racial segregation in the 1940s and '50s.

Efforts to integrate the ranks began right after World War II, culminating with President Harry S. Truman signing a 1948 executive order banning racial discrimination in the military.

The job wasn't finished until the Defense Department disbanded its last all-black units in 1954. Still, that was at a time when the modern civil rights movement was just building momentum. Five months earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its landmark ruling ordering an end to segregation in America's public schools. Bus boycotts in Montgomery, Ala., began the following year.

In other words, the military succeeded with desegregation when a huge proportion of Americans remained hostile to the idea of blacks and whites sharing schools, lunch counters and water fountains - or barracks and foxholes.

"This was a huge change forced upon the American population coming of age," said Steven Schlossman, a history professor at Carnegie Mellon University and co-author of the book "Foxholes and Color Lines: Desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces." ''Its challenge to Jim Crow was enormous and maybe a shock to many young soldiers."

Blacks served in every U.S. military conflict beginning with the American Revolution, but in separate units that were often poorly trained and ill equipped. White officers were commonly ordered to lead black units as punishment.

Arguments today in favor of keeping the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell policy" - that openly serving gays would disrupt morale and erode the cohesion of combat units - echo those used to defend military segregation along racial lines, said Marcus S. Cox, a history professor at The Citadel in Charleston, S.C.

"Many people used that same argument against African-Americans serving in the same units as whites," said Cox, who teaches black military history to Citadel cadets. "Many people said it's the end of the military. But the result was there were very few problems, the military ran very efficiently."

The integration of blacks into all-white units in Korea was so uneventful that white soldiers like Phil McCraney hardly noticed. McCraney, 78, says his Army company of 150 troops had only four or five blacks by the time he returned home in 1951.

AP News: Desegregation offers lessons for gay troops debate

Today, we have society at a MORE ADVANCED stage of tolerance, yet we are CATERING MORE to those who stand in the way of equality...

We have MANY MODERN MILITARIES in different countries across the globe WHO ALREADY have openly gay people serving in the military.
Yet some people insist on catering to a fear that people will abandon the military in droves to avoid gays who are already serving there...

We have had TWO SEPARATE federally funded research projects concluding that gays can be integrated into the military with proper enforcement and policy.
Yet some people keep ignoring the facts in front of us, insisting that we continue the discrimination...

Makes no sense...

bot · #10 (**permalink**) 11-01-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

You don't even understand what "minority" means, otherwise you would never even try to claim gays aren't a minority group.

And this absurd claim that gays aren't "systematically oppressed" is just plain absurd.
Laws preventing gays from adopting.
Laws preventing gays from serving in the military.
Laws preventing legal recognition of gay couples.

And stretching back into history to times when we were MORE systematically oppressed, we have laws which said our very sex was illegal.
Laws which stated it was illegal to serve a homosexual a drink.
Employment discrimination against gays. Violence against gays.
Marginalized and slurred with rabid abuse.
Systematic even to the extent of claiming gays were mentally ill.
And you refuse to admit this is systematic oppression?

Or is it more to the point that you SUPPORT such oppression, as demonstrated by your next comments ...

I don't know what it is with some people who seem to think "If there isn't ABSOLUTE PROOF that being gay is genetic, then it must be a choice" is somehow a logical approach.
It isn't.

There are a variety of non-genetic (and non-choice) options which are out there, including environmental effects like the environment of a mother's womb.

But for some reason, people like you seem to think "prove it's genetic, otherwise that means it has to be choice".
Perhaps we should challenge "prove it's a choice, otherwise that proves it's genetic".

The truth is that not even the anti-gay "experts" claim it is a choice.

And yet, we CURRENTLY have gays serving in the military.
MANY military member know people they serve alongside are gay, and they don't care.

OTHER COUNTRIES allow gays to serve openly in the military, and they do just fine.
This claim of "highly disruptive" is grotesquely exaggerated.

My GAWD the ignorance some people readily display...

If you think gays would join an organization which PUTS THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, just for the possibility of "gay parties in the barracks"????

You display your fears on your sleeve, and it's painfully obvious to anybody who thinks about it (or actually knows what gay people are like) that your comments are ridiculous.

I don't get why we need proof of a "gay gene" but not proof of a "straight gene".
I've generally found that straight men who claim sexuality is a choice are men who are struggling with their choice to be straight.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
Trinnity

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
bot, Coyote, dabateman

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
Coyote, DownSouth

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bot For This Useful Post:
Coyote, DownSouth, foundit66, jlarsen, Miller