70% of military believe lifting gay ban would have positive influence

[disneydude]

Sources: Pentagon group finds there is minimal risk to lifting gay ban during war

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report's authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.

 

[Paschendale]

Yep, we can find studies that will produce any results we want. How about we just 1) stop discriminating, and 2) respect our military enough to believe they're not afraid of the gay cooties.

 

[disneydude]

It just goes to show that the homophobes who think that the military are as bigoted as they are.....are completely wrong.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Yep, we can find studies that will produce any results we want.

How many of a certain type of person felt like taking the survey?




Is it pressure from soldiers which throws this issue into the spotlight? Or is it from the usual political suspects who, whenever they gain their 'last territorial demand' always go on to demand more anyway?


Why not poll all troops and see what they think, region by region and state by state. Those companies and platoons who want gays to join their ranks can have them and those for whom homosexuality is distasteful can reject them.

Simple really.

 

[disneydude]

How many of a certain type of person felt like taking the survey?




Is it pressure from soldiers which throws this issue into the spotlight? Or is it from the usual political suspects who, whenever they gain their 'last territorial demand' always go on to demand more anyway?


Why not poll all troops and see what they think, region by region and state by state. Those companies and platoons who want gays to join their ranks can have them and those for whom homosexuality is distasteful can reject them.

Simple really.

Enough were surveyed to get a valid result. Substantially more than a normal poll take.

As for your other suggestion.....not in America where we value freedom and equality.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

As for your other suggestion.....not in America where we value freedom and equality.

You mean democracy? Liberals at the Senate are more valuable than soldiers, who can't be trusted to run their own minds and who must be forced to take what they don't like.

Alright to be sent out to die though.

 

[disneydude]

You mean democracy? Liberals at the Senate are more valuable than soldiers, who can't be trusted to run their own minds and who must be forced to take what they don't like.

Alright to be sent out to die though.

How you can look at the facts and completely not see them is amazing. The overwhelming majority of the military say that they believe lifting the ban will have a positive influence. Sure....there are always going to be some homophobes and bigots....but its refreshing to see that THAT mindset is dying out and that the vast majority of the military, like our American society in general, are rejecting the closed minded views of the past.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

The overwhelming majority of the military say that they believe lifting the ban will have a positive influence.

Yeah, with your picked evidence. As liberals tell me, you have have to wonder at the circumstances. Maybe it's an accurate result, maybe it isn't. But it's inaccurate to label 'homosceptics' as bigots just because they don't find sex perverts very appetising.


There seem to be two sides to every story though:

'Gays in army responsible for genocide' claims retired U.S. general | Mail Online

Serious Doubts Over Gays In Army



But where will it end? Knowing the liberals, it won't stop at 'ordinary' non-discrept homos. It'll be the prancing sickos next, as found in the old 'mother country':

Dad's Pooves on parade for gay recruits for 'Queen's Army' - Times Online

THE army came out in style this weekend when it launched a recruitment drive aimed at tempting more gays, lesbians, transvestites and even transsexuals into the ranks.

Whatever would Captain Mainwaring say?!


The enemy will be p****ng themselves alright - through laughter rather than fear!

 

[Paschendale]

Funny how it's cool to discriminate against "sickos", but raging douchebags get a pass...

 

[Deuce]

How many of a certain type of person felt like taking the survey?

Couldn't tell you that until you tell me what "a certain type" is.

Is it pressure from soldiers which throws this issue into the spotlight? Or is it from the usual political suspects who, whenever they gain their 'last territorial demand' always go on to demand more anyway?

Until our government starts treating homosexuals as full citizens, they aren't going to stop "demanding." Would you have said the same thing during the civil rights movement? Those dang blacks! First we let them vote, and then they went and demanded they attend the same schools!! Sounds absurd, doesn't it? You're basically doing the same thing with homosexuals. You have rights that they don't have, but you have the audacity to keep up this nonsense about them wanting some sort of special treatment?

Why not poll all troops and see what they think, region by region and state by state. Those companies and platoons who want gays to join their ranks can have them and those for whom homosexuality is distasteful can reject them.

Simple really.

You don't seem to understand how statistics work. They've polled plenty of people.

You mean democracy? Liberals at the Senate are more valuable than soldiers, who can't be trusted to run their own minds and who must be forced to take what they don't like.

Alright to be sent out to die though.

Uhh, you're the one who thinks the soldiers can't be trusted. 70% think things will be fine, but you seem to think their opinion is wrong.

Yeah, with your picked evidence. As liberals tell me, you have have to wonder at the circumstances. Maybe it's an accurate result, maybe it isn't. But it's inaccurate to label 'homosceptics' as bigots just because they don't find sex perverts very appetising.


There seem to be two sides to every story though:

'Gays in army responsible for genocide' claims retired U.S. general | Mail Online

Serious Doubts Over Gays In Army



But where will it end? Knowing the liberals, it won't stop at 'ordinary' non-discrept homos. It'll be the prancing sickos next, as found in the old 'mother country':

Dad's Pooves on parade for gay recruits for 'Queen's Army' - Times Online



Whatever would Captain Mainwaring say?!


The enemy will be p****ng themselves alright - through laughter rather than fear!

Prancing sickos. Listen to yourself. You don't even hide your hatred. Have fun in the 19th century.

Also, LOL Daily Mail.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Couldn't tell you that until you tell me what "a certain type" is.

70% of soldiers polled isn't the same as 70% of the army. But if such a figure is accurate it only encourages liberals. Which is why I say that if anyone should vote on the repeal it should be the soldiers. All this affects them.

Would you have said the same thing during the civil rights movement? Those dang blacks! First we let them vote, and then they went and demanded they attend the same schools!!

Gays always could vote as far as I'm aware (when they were out of jail). And unless they've abused a chemistry set, they've no kids to attend school. There are plenty of laws against persecuting homosexuals. Now there's one coming to foist them on soldiers, whether individual platoons or companies want them or not. And that's fascist.

70% think things will be fine, but you seem to think their opinion is wrong.

No, I asked a question of the survey. A huge swing away from the 95% article there. But as I say, let the Senate institute something along the lines of what I suggested and let the troops have who they want with them.

What are the liberal ******s afraid of? The 'wrong' results?!

Prancing sickos. Listen to yourself. You don't even hide your hatred. Have fun in the 19th century.

Yes, they are. Out comes the smear and invalidation against someone with an alternative point of view.

(And if a hip-shaking transvestite queening about the parade ground isn't some kind of sick weirdo, I don't know what is! 'Ooo, I can't go over that training course Sergeant-Major, I'll break my nails and ruin my perm!')


VOTE LABOUR! (DEMOCRAT in USA)


...'A Bit Suspect!'

 

[Deuce]

70% of soldiers polled isn't the same as 70% of the army. But if such a figure is accurate it only encourages liberals. Which is why I say that if anyone should vote on the repeal it should be the soldiers. All this affects them.





Gays always could vote as far as I'm aware (when they were out of jail). And unless they've abused a chemistry set, they've no kids to attend school. There are plenty of laws against persecuting homosexuals. Now there's one coming to foist them on soldiers, whether individual platoons or companies want them or not. And that's fascist.





No, I asked a question of the survey. A huge swing away from the 95% article there. But as I say, let the Senate institute something along the lines of what I suggested and let the troops have who they want with them.

What are the liberal ******s afraid of? The 'wrong' results?!





Yes, they are. Out comes the smear and invalidation against someone with an alternative point of view.

(And if a hip-shaking transvestite queening about the parade ground isn't some kind of sick weirdo, I don't know what is!)

You have no understanding of statistics or polling. The 95% number was based on one room full of marines raising hands, but that's ok for you because it supports your viewpoint. But when the numbers don't you demand they survery every member of the military. Good god, you even used a monty python skit to support your hate.

Statistics does not require you to survey an entire group. Those pre-election polls, did you just assume they were all wrong because they only survey a small group of people?

I'm not afraid of the results because I already know what they'll be, plus or minus a couple percent.

Gays are forced to hide who they are to stay in the military, straights are not.
Gays have little or no marriage rights in most states. Straights have universal rights that are applied no matter where they live or where they move.

What is it, exactly, that you're so terrified of? You think the military is going to let people dress in fishnets and **** in the showers? No, because that's against regulations already and nobody's asking for anything of the sort. It's your own personal fear and hatred that is inventing this scenario you have in your head.

We both know this will happen sooner or later. If you don't like it, I suggest you stay away from a military career.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Statistics does not require you to survey an entire group.

Indeed. As you would say, when it's a majority of a mass polled supporting what you want, that's the way to go. But when 95% of another mass polled don't want that, they're all to be smeared as bigots and homophobes!

Hate, did I hear you say?!

Good god, you even used a monty python skit to support your hate.

'Oooo, hate'! It's not evidence you silly little, just a bit of a sense of the ridiculous!

I'm not afraid of the results because I already know what they'll be, plus or minus a couple percent.

Nothing like an anticipated victory to give you hubris. If it was to go the other way in the Senate, you'd be screaming blue murder and wishing the subject had not arisen at all. There have certainly been no few insults hurled at me.

Pathetic really.

Gays are forced to hide who they are to stay in the military, straights are not.
Gays have little or no marriage rights in most states.

There's been a reason for those things, real or perceived. Homosexuality is and was always viewed as universally weird and pervy in most known cultures. It's not a reproductive proclivity and takes a whole lot of mental conditioning to accept.

But that's not enough. Everyone must embrace it now. You can't just not let it be any of your damn business any more, to live and let live. It's going too far.

No, because that's against regulations already and nobody's asking for anything of the sort.

Regulations can be abolished, right across the board. That's been the whole 'PC' effect all through the years. You just watch and see the thing go the way of England.....

...own personal fear and hatred...

Yep, the opposition have something wrong with them if they disagree. 'Hate' is a favourite buzzword I've noticed.

 

[Deuce]

Live and let live, by denying people rights? That's your definition of live and let live?

You want homosexuals to be treated differently than yourself, and you have the nerve to talk about live and let live.

What's YOUR reason? Don't hide behind history. Why do YOU want homosexuals to have fewer rights?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

That's your definition of live and let live?

No, that's yours.

Don't hide behind history.

That's sad. No, that's taking the fire out of a debate that. Saps the spirit to say that. Those who disregard history are doomed to repeat it.

Why do YOU want homosexuals to have fewer rights?

They're legal and can do whatever they please, within reason. The only real fig leaf they have is that their activities are usually between consenting adults.

 

[Jetboogieman]

They're legal and can do whatever they please, within reason. The only real fig leaf they have is that their activities are usually between consenting adults.

I asked you this in another thread, and you failed to address it.

why should Homosexuals as a group have to act in a manner, prescribed by you? Because you think it's right?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I didn't say anything about 'prescribed by me'. You'll read that more than once I said the soldiers should be allowed to decide who they have in their squads and divisions, not politicians.

And I also remember saying that viewpoints being confused with ordering someone about would be easy for liberals, because that's the way they run us all the time!

 

[Jetboogieman]

I didn't say anything about 'prescribed by me'. You'll read that more than once I said the soldiers should be allowed to decide who they have in their squads and divisions, not politicians.

So if a Squad decided they didn't want an Asian or a Black in their Squad... that would be ok?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I wouldn't have thought so, not if they don't get up to anything creepy.

But it brings us back to the Don't Ask compromise. If gays don't act it then there's no problem to arise. And there shouldn't be any reason to be flambouyant about it on the post.

I suppose we'll have to agree to differ on this one. Politics will take its course and hopefully we'll all have our say as these develop.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I wouldn't have thought so, not if they don't get up to anything creepy.

But it brings us back to the Don't Ask compromise. If gays don't act it then there's no problem to arise.

Ok so the fundemental question is, what constitutes "as long as they don't act it"?

And what constitutes what you said earlier about "within Reason"?

Why should they have to act like anything that you say they should?

If a black guy in a unit acts like a gangsta, and it makes his fellow squad member feel uncomfortable, does that give them the right to eject him from the squad even if it causes no harm to them and he's still a good soldier?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

If a black guy in a unit acts like a 'gansgsta' then he'd be disciplined.

Army rules governing behaviour are typically there for discipline, morale and order. And as I say, if the issue is that important, then let the soldiers decide. Academic what I think after that.

 

[Jetboogieman]

If a black guy in a unit acts like a 'gansgsta' then he'd be disciplined.

Army rules governing behaviour are typically there for discipline, morale and order. And as I say, if the issue is that important, then let the soldiers decide. Academic what I think after that.

So you're not going to address the other questions?

I meant more in the field, even if he was a good soldier that watched your back. If his mannerisms made you feel uncomfortable, does that give you the right to eject him from the Squad?

You're not answering the question.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

As the Don't Ask rule anticipates, if he's good in battle and doesn't bother his comrades with anything then things should rub along fine. And I have no doubt in many cases they do.

It's the political and ethical side which this is about, or so I thought.

 

[Deuce]

No, that's yours.





That's sad. No, that's taking the fire out of a debate that. Saps the spirit to say that. Those who disregard history are doomed to repeat it.





They're legal and can do whatever they please, within reason. The only real fig leaf they have is that their activities are usually between consenting adults.

Nice dodge. They have fewer rights than you do. Why do you want to keep it that way? Why are you deserving of special treatment?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Nice dodge.

I could say that back to you. You're referring to an exchange a little way back.

Why are you deserving of special treatment?

I'm not. I'm just an ordinary bloke. And if anything I don't want to be put on a pedestal.


Example:

ANTI-CAPITALISM STUDIES
Raymond Williams, Gay History (Rectums of our Times, you could say),
Anti-Globalization, and much more..
www.studiesinanti-capitalism.net


...And that was listed as an AD on the Google search page on the way to this site!!