Reply
Tue 19 Dec, 2006 12:57 pm
73% of US Military is OK with gays serving openly
by PageOneQ
Seventy-three percent of US military members would accept openly gay and lesbian service members being in their units, according to a new poll released by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center. Over one in five respondents to the survey said they know for certain that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian. The survey was conducted of both combat and non-combat units, according to a statement issued by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and obtained by PageOneQ.
"Today's poll is one more nail in the coffin of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said in the statement.
The survey included over 500 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Forty-five percent of the veterans of those wars indicated that although they were not certain there was a gay or lesbian member of their unit, they suspected there was.
The survey responses represent a dramatic change from 1993, when thirteen percent of service members said they supported the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
A number of polls conducted in recent years have also indicated support for the repeal of the ban. In a 2004 Annenberg poll, a majority of junior enlisted personnel supported allowing out service members. The same poll found that 79% of the general public supported repealing the ban. And, according to SLDN, a poll recently conducted by the Boston Globe indicated that a majority of self identified conservatives and church-goers support repeal of the ban.
Military leaders such as three-star Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (ret.), the first female to achieve that rank in the Army, and Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, former superintendent of West Point, both support repealing the ban.
I think gays should be allowed to be in the military. While, they don't have the right to join, anymore than anybody else, they should be allowed to put their lives on the line too, for the privelegs they enjoy living in & being citizens of the greatest country on earth. I think they should have seperate housing, like our male & female members do now, but other than that, good luck to them.
The cowardly don't ask, don't tell policy that Clinton put forth did notihng but make it worse. A wimpy policy.
LoneStar, ah yes segregation. Now that's wimpy.
For those of you who have deluded yourselves into thinking that the story of Sodom isn't really talking about homosexuals, read the following: the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had completely turned away from God, and whenever that happens, homosexuality abounds. Paul described this in Romans 1, and you can read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Conditions in Sodom were so bad that it had become acceptable for men to surround Lot's house and ask to have sex with the men inside. Anybody who thinks that today is any different than those days needs to attend San Francisco's annual gay rights parade, stand along the parade route, and hold a sign that says "GOD HATES FAGS." You'll see and hear evidence of all of the sins of Sodom in just a few short hours (sodomy, violence, fornication, adultery, pride, sinful treatment of the servants of God, etc.) The same mob mentality that ruled the unlawful fags in the days of Sodom rules the unlawful fags today.
blueflame1 wrote:LoneStar, ah yes segregation. Now that's wimpy.
Is seperate male & female housing segregation? The military isn't a social program.
Quote:73% of US Military is OK with gays serving openly
Well, yeah, they're part of the WAD (Weapons of @$$ Destruction)
Finding and hunting down gay Iraqis.
Gays who want to join the military and get married shouldn't be encouraged -- they should be evaluated for mental illness.
joefromchicago wrote:Gays who want to join the military and get married shouldn't be encouraged -- they should be evaluated for mental illness.
ALL persons joining the military are evaluated for any mental or physical illness.
plainoldme wrote:Why not?
I would think that one of the advantages of being gay was not being able to serve in the military and not having any pressure to get married. Why anyone would want to impose these onerous obligations on themselves is completely beyond me.
Alexander III of Macedon and Iulius Caesar were bi-sexual; Richard Lionheart seems to have been exclusively homosexual (he never married, and was never accused of siring bastards, and ignored his mother when she publicly complained about his homosexuality). Some gay dudes seem to have enjoyed hacking people into little bits--by all accounts, it was a toss-up for Richard Lionheart whether he better liked hacking people up, or buggering adolescent boys.
joefromchicago wrote:plainoldme wrote:Why not?
I would think that one of the advantages of being gay was not being able to serve in the military and not having any pressure to get married. Why anyone would want to impose these onerous obligations on themselves is completely beyond me.
Well, Joe - in my humble opinion, what's missing from your equation are the small matters of free will and individual opinion. One person's "onerous obligation" is another's sacred privilege. No need to deride either mindset, just because one doesn't share it.
What always gets me me when people talk about "gays in the miltary" is that they always seem to be talking about gay MEN. Now I have no facts to back me up but, just based on observation, I would guess that the gay/bi population of the female military is somewhere between 40-70%. So if every bi or gay woman is suddenly kicked out of the military, we are going to have a real problem.
Setanta wrote:Alexander III of Macedon and Iulius Caesar were bi-sexual; Richard Lionheart seems to have been exclusively homosexual (he never married, and was never accused of siring bastards, and ignored his mother when she publicly complained about his homosexuality). Some gay dudes seem to have enjoyed hacking people into little bits--by all accounts, it was a toss-up for Richard Lionheart whether he better liked hacking people up, or buggering adolescent boys.
and animals they f*cked animals right?
:wink:
Oh yuck, bear.
Somehow, I don't buy this new poll. Someone said recently that people have a tendency to answer a poll one way while feeling another way on any given issue and I think that theory applies here more than ever.
You cannot tell me that these macho boys in the military would have no problem sharing their intimate space with an openly gay man. I just don't believe that.
Oh puhleeeeeze, men f*ck anything that moves and even things that DON'T move...
and so...
Not getting your point, Miss Thing.
eoe wrote:Oh yuck, bear.
Somehow, I don't buy this new poll. Someone said recently that people have a tendency to answer a poll one way while feeling another way on any given issue and I think that theory applies here more than ever.
You cannot tell me that these macho boys in the military would have no problem sharing their intimate space with an openly gay man. I just don't believe that.
Bullshit, if a man is secure in his own masculinity, he is not going to feel threatened by some queen sharing space with him. It's the "macho men" closet queens who have the problem.
I'm not questioning who and why someone is going to have a problem. I'm just saying that someone, probably many someones, are going to have a problem. For whatever reason.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace