- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
There is no measurement that has 99% of any branch in agreement on the issue.
Overwhelmingly, those with experience serving with someone they know to be gay found that it did not cause a problem. You're big on experience, right? This includes front-line combat units.
You're not stupid, but you're a smaller minority than you think and if you'd served with someone you know to be gay there's a statistically high chance that you would have found it to be no big deal.
But hey, good job on keeping the whole persecution complex going.
Have you served in the military at all?
99% of the Army and Marine Corps vets, plus the one, or two Air Force and Navy vets that have seen actual action, or served in some SF role tell you one thing, but ya'll constantly say we're wrong and drag out the same ole lame ass arguments and speculations. We're all just stupid, or what?
Those concerns are "driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay service members were allowed to be 'open' about their sexual orientation," the report's authors concluded. "Repeatedly, we heard service members express the view that 'open' homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and a small overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion and morality."
the problem isn't when there are two gay men, it's when there are three; and two of them are in a relationship... until one of them decides to cheat on his partner with a third.
and so on and so forth. the problems that come with the introduction of sexuality into a unit are legion, from jealousy, to cliqueishness, to backbiting, to distraction.
99% of the ground unit vets on this forum tell the same story. Most soldiers and marines, that serve in combat arms units say the same thing we are saying. The Commandant of The Marine Corps and the Army Chief of Staff says what we're saying.
I guess you know more about it than we do? We know you're right, but we're just a buncha homophobes? Am I close?
I'm sorry, but civilian polls and annecdotes are evidence enough to trump what the people who have been there and done that are saying.
Have you met 99% of Army and Marine Corps vets? Does your personal experience somehow trump a stastistically significant survey? I can gather various news articles describing the experience of combat vets in the Army, Marine Corps, and SF who say that serving with gays isn't a problem. You seem to think that anecdotes somehow are more informative than data. Also, just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion is based in reality.
From the lips of the people who conducted the survey itself:
Like I said, over 80% of ground combat vets who had actually had working experience with gays had positive or neutral experiences. The sentiments expressed above are indicative of people prejudging and stereotyping, rather than being based on any objective knowledge of what working with gays would actually be like.
The poll I'm talking about was done by the military and surveyed military personnel. Yes, a majority of combat units agree with you... unless they have actual experience serving with people they know to be gay, at which point they say it doesn't matter. My opinion is based on those of people with the actual experience of serving with homosexuals.
Again with the persecution complex. It's funny that you talk about anecdotes while spouting your own. Everything I've said comes from actual studies.
That's where the trick math comes into play. The percentage of, "ground combat vets", who have had, "working experience", with openly gay soldiers is very small.
Sure they might be a small percentage, but they are still there. However the large difference in attitudes is rather interesting, no?
You're just trying to trick people into thinking that most people in the combat arms think like you do and it's just not true.
I never said anything like that. Obviously most people in the combat arms don't (IIRC 60% of infantry Marines were against). But the small percentage of people who have actually interacted with gays do. Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?
What I wonder, is how you can totally ignore what people are telling you and basing your opinion completely on a poll, or something.
I've heard people on both sides of the issue, so no i'm not ignoring what people are telling me. In addition it was not a "poll" but an comprehensive survey. Polls and Surveys are an attempt to gauge and know more about REALITY. The REALITY is that the majority of combat arms ground troops are against gays openly serving, I don't deny that. REALITY also states that the vast majority of combat vets who have experience serving with gays see no need for such a policy. Why is there such a huge difference?
A poll or survey is going to give you a much more comprehensive and holistic view of the situation. I don't understand why you think your own hearsay and personal experience somehow trumps the personal experiences of many other people taken together. If everyone who lives around me, and all my friends and relatives, say "Obama rocks, his is the best Prez-o-dent evaaaa!" but the polls say that his approval rating isn't that hot, am i really supposed to believe the former over the latter? Similar situation.
What I wonder, is how you can totally ignore what people are telling you and basing your opinion completely on a poll, or something.
Plenty of people have given you first hand experience working with openly gay personnel and provided polls that indicate strongly that even most combat troops who have actually worked with openly gay personnel did not find it to cause any issues.
And some times it is prudent to ignore what others tell you. Fear of the unknown can lead people to begin to believe things that are not true or, at the very least, have no evidence to support that they will likely come to pass. The same things were said by experienced combat personnel when the military was desegregated. The military was able to survive past that with few issues. The military will survive past this, especially since the homosexuals are already serving in those units now.
You have no actual proof that allowing gays to serve openly will affect unit morale or cohesion. From what you have said, you haven't even worked with openly gay military personnel. Unless you actually have and have seen major issues because of this, then you have no actual experience to back up your "fears". You are simply arguing based on your fears of what might happen.
And some times it is prudent to ignore what others tell you.
First, do you want to back up your claim that these soldiers only claim to be gay so that they could get out under DADT? No, thats alright, I know you can't. And as much as it happens in the military, its an exception not a rule.
Second, are you seriously insulting gay/lesbian men and women in uniform as being sub-par translators???
Lastly, every soldier counts.
All but one of the ground unit vets on this forum tell a different story than you do.
The biggest difference being, the people on the opposite side of the issue from you are the ones--for the most part--with the most experience in that type of environment.
"Repeatedly, we heard service members express the view that 'open' homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units,
Statistically significant survey gathering an over 30% response rate = dubious? Can you prove how the numbers are dubious? Do you know anything about statistics? Seems numbers are only dubious when you disagree with them.The only evidence that you're able to produce that counters this first hand experience, is a poll, with dubious numbers.
Plus, we're all homophobes and bigots for not agreeing with your side of the argument.
Seems to me that you could have looked at what I said –“they may have done that to get out.” – before you asked me to back up a statement that I didn’t make.
I believe that I said that a boy in a dress wouldn't get much interpreting done in the Middle East.
I don’t know where you served but in the Air Force in the bomb dump about 15% of our guys didn’t count for much.
All but one of the ground unit vets on this forum tell a different story than you do.
None of the combat vets have actually admitted to working with openly gay personnel, that I can recall. And if one did, and they still think that allowing gays to serve openly will affect morale/unit cohesion, they have not given the exact reasons why they believe this or what the circumstances are that led them to such a conclusion based just on them working with the openly gay personnel.
I have actually wondered if anybody used the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy to get out of the military... I remember Pauly Shore tried to do it in that movie. OMG I can't stand Pauly Shore.. he was so annoying and unfunny.
Plenty of people have given you first hand experience working with openly gay personnel and provided polls that indicate strongly that even most combat troops who have actually worked with openly gay personnel did not find it to cause any issues.
You have no actual proof that allowing gays to serve openly will affect unit morale or cohesion.
admitting open homosexuals reduces cohesion. reduced cohesion causes casuaties. each kia costs the military more than what - 10, 15x the amount he's complaining about?
None of the combat vets have actually admitted to working with openly gay personnel, that I can recall.
You're juuuuust about to figure it out.
The problem isn't with gays serving openly. We've already explained to you what problems are going to arise. You swear up-n-down that we don't know what we're talking about, so there's no need to get back into it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?