wounded, heroic gay soldier too gay to serve - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-11-2005, 09:08 AM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby


And I suppose you get all your news information from the weekly standard and Fox news, right? I mean, I love how you all dismiss what I say as bullshit, but the fact is people use the media to support there viewpoints. I could post articles from all sorts of conservative media outlets debunking what the writer says and you would all dismiss it in a heartbeat.

to set up a comparison between, say, The Weekly Standard and, say, Newsweek is hugely false. TWS is conservative, and makes no bones about it, and that's fine -- totally their right to do so. Newsweek, however, has no stated agenda and they do their best to report as they see it, keeping in mind the natural bias that all reporters have, because they are human. what is completely false is to say that publications like the NYT, the Washington Post, or whatever other mainstream, non-ideological newspapers are out there are therefore "liberal" simply because they do not tow a right wing party line.

it's like debates on fox. they usually have a somewhat conservative commentator, one very right wing pundit, and a moderate-to-slightly-left leaning pundit. this format sets up a natural, but false, binary opposition -- it's not "left vs. right" but "far right vs. moderate" and the effect is both to skew the center of gravity of the dialogue to the right as well as, through this juxtaposition, cast the moderate as actually being as far "left" as the right winger is to the "right" as if they were both equidistant points from that space we might call moderate.

sorry, it drive me crazy.

the fact remains, though, is that your objection to gays in the military was not rooted in any newspaper article but in your own personal experience. that's 100% valid. and it would have also been valid for you to read the NYT article and disagree with it based upon your own personal experience, but to simply dismiss it as "ultra liberal" doesn't do much for dialogue, and weakens your own earlier positions.

that said, could you address my point: why is your sense of being "comfortable" more important than a gay person's right to serve? why should someone be dismissed from the military, especially in light of all these interpreters fluent in Farsi and Arabic who have been discharged, simply because they are gay? are the justifications for removal -- the points you mentioned -- more important than the contributions made by these gay soldiers?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 11:38 AM   #92
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 08:45 PM
I wonder if the courts will (or can?) help decide this one.

Does anyone know if anyone's ever taken the military/government to court over "don't ask, don't tell"?
__________________

__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 01:07 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
that said, could you address my point: why is your sense of being "comfortable" more important than a gay person's right to serve? why should someone be dismissed from the military, especially in light of all these interpreters fluent in Farsi and Arabic who have been discharged, simply because they are gay? are the justifications for removal -- the points you mentioned -- more important than the contributions made by these gay soldiers?
.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-11-2005, 01:58 PM   #94
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
I wonder if the courts will (or can?) help decide this one.

Does anyone know if anyone's ever taken the military/government to court over "don't ask, don't tell"?
Thats always the answer, isn't it? Get some activist judge involved to further push the liberal agenda.

Okay, I'm gonna say for sake of argument that we let anyone OPENLY gay serve in US armed forces. So will there be any limitations on this? I mean, what if a gay drag queen wants to serve in the Navy? Will he be allowed to serve as a female, using this as an argument that "hey I'm allowed to openly serve, its my right"? What about multiple gay men serving in a combat unit? Could this cause a problem with discipline if there were some kind of love interest? Would 2 single gay men or women who were romantically involved be allowed to share government living quarters? At this time, single male and female military members are not allowed to share government quarters due to differences in gender.

Oh, and Irvine the military is NOT on a witch hunt to kick out gay members like these interpreters and such you are talking about. Do you mean to tell me 200 plus gay people were kicked out of the military because they "accidentally slipped up" and told something personal about there sex life? Hogwash. I'm sure most gays are perfectly capable of keeping there sex life a secret when they want to. These ppl chose to share there lifestyles with others and it went against the policy. The Military is in no position at this point in its history to try to look for ppl to kick out. It just isn't happening. As a matter of fact,I was just forced to attend a video briefing discussing "Tolerance" and one of the issues was sexual orientation and how military members are not allowed to harrass anyone based on this (which I agree with by the way) the bottom line is gays openly serving, especially in forward combat units, will undermine morale and cohesion for that unit. In the end, it will cost lives.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 01:59 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Thats always the answer, isn't it? Get some activist judge involved to further push the liberal agenda.
I hope an activist judge bans openly heterosexual people from the military.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 02:50 PM   #96
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Thats always the answer, isn't it? Get some activist judge involved to further push the liberal agenda.
Of course it does. When has a society ever not needed to have the law tell them when to accept rights and liberties? Its comments such as the one above that make it necessary for 'some activist judge' to get involved in the first place.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 03:00 PM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
As a matter of fact,I was just forced to attend a video briefing discussing "Tolerance" and one of the issues was sexual orientation and how military members are not allowed to harrass anyone based on this (which I agree with by the way) the bottom line is gays openly serving, especially in forward combat units, will undermine morale and cohesion for that unit. In the end, it will cost lives.
Funny, how the artcle I posted about other countries NOT having problems in Iraq is ignored by you in this sentence.

Again, I served my country along side of gay and lesbian soldiers. Never had any problems at all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 03:14 PM   #98
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 08:45 PM
From a Canadian's perspective, it sounds like the United States has more of a screening problem with its judiciary than with homosexuals in the army.

Apparently, "activist judges" are running rampant across the country. They should get rid of that "don't ask, don't tell" policy on "judge activism"...root those deviants out, man.
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 03:22 PM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Study: Gay Military Discharges Plummet
Bay Windows
by Ethan Jacobs

As American troops continue to risk their lives abroad, two new studies cast doubt on the policy that forces GLBT military personnel to remain in the closet while in the service.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), an advocacy organization for GLBT members of the military, released a report March 24 showing that discharges under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy fell by 17 percent in 2003. SLDN links the drop in discharges to the need for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that GLBT personnel are less likely to be removed from service during a time of conflict. The organization contends this indicates that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is unnecessary since GLBT soldiers are capable of serving alongside their straight peers in the most arduous of circumstances.

The trend of fewer discharges is most likely not the result of a formal or informal policy shift in the Pentagon. Sharra Greer, SLDN's director of law and policy, said in prior conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf War in the early '90s, the military instituted stop-loss orders that suspended discharges under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and under the gay ban that existed prior to that policy. Branches of the service have instituted stop-loss orders during the current conflicts, but those orders do not apply to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" proceedings.

According to Greer, the reduction in discharges stems from the decisions of military leaders in the field.

"It is a command level, ship level, unit level sort of decision," said Greer. "... If your command needs you to go into combat, they keep you."

She said that the drop in discharges flies in the face of the original rationale behind the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy: that openly gay troops would disrupt morale. She said that the drop in discharges, a 39 percent decrease since 2001, shows that when the military is in a time of crisis, it is able to rely on its GLBT service members.

According to SLDN, not only is the policy unnecessary, it is also costly. The organization estimates that the cost of training all the soldiers discharged under the ban since its enactment is between $250 million and $1.2 billion.

Greer said SLDN hopes to use this report to convince policy-makers to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Since the policy was passed into law by Congress the military acting on its own cannot rescind it, Greer explained. Calls to the Department of Defense were not returned by press time.

Another study, commissioned by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM), a program of UC Santa Barbara, and released Feb. 9, also called into question claims that openly GLBT service members would undermine morale. The study's authors examined interactions between soldiers from the U.S. and from allied nations in NATO and the United Nations that allow gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly. Included in the study were five case studies of gay soldiers from these allied nations who served with American soldiers in various contexts, including in the current conflict in Iraq.

Aaron Belkin, director of CSSMM said that these openly gay soldiers encountered little friction with their American counterparts.

"There were not any problems with cohesion," said Belkin. "One of the officers actually commanded Americans."


Notably absent from the study, however, are interviews with the American soldiers who served alongside the foreign soldiers featured in the case studies. Belkin explained that American personnel would see themselves as "bucking the chain of command" if they commented on the policy. He said the study's authors examined the performance evaluations of the foreign soldiers featured in the study and found no evidence of friction with American troops.

Belkin said that despite these studies, and recent polling indicating that the majority of Americans support allowing GLBT soldiers to serve openly, there is little will in Congress to revisit the policy.

"I don't think that any of this research is going to have a major impact on public policy any time soon," said Belkin.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 03:24 PM   #100
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:45 PM
From the Log Cabin republicans

[Q]Issue: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Don't Work

The United States military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy must be changed. This blatant discrimination damages our military readiness and weakens national defense. A 2003 research report commissioned by the Liberty Education Forum shows how this policy is hurting the American military.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is the only law in America that authorizes the firing of an American for simply being gay. Researchers estimate tens of thousands of gay and lesbian Americans currently serve in our nation's military-on the front lines of freedom. We commend their sacrifice, along with the sacrifices of all the other Americans who protect our nation. No man or woman in uniform should have to worry about being thrown out of the military for being gay. One's sexual orientation is no reflection of their courage. Those who fight for freedom shouldn't face discrimination from the government they protect. Furthermore, the military should be promoting honesty among its service members, not secrecy.

There are many reasons why Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be changed. Here are some of them:

1. With our nation at war, it is imperative to have the best and brightest fighting for freedom. We need the most qualified and competent people defending us, regardless of their sexual orientation. Don't Ask, Don't Tell keeps many talented Americans from serving this nation. As recruiting an all-volunteer force becomes more challenging, the military should not jeopardize its effectiveness by closing the door to qualified Americans interested in serving. In November 2002, seven linguists fluent in Arabic got kicked out of the military's Defense Language Institute for being gay. This happened even as intelligence agencies complained about a shortage of linguists fluent in Arabic. Winning the war on terror depends on having such people serving our nation.

2. Allowing openly gay service members will not hurt unit cohesion or competence. Our closest allies allow openly gay service members, including every member of NATO except Turkey. Research shows none of the countries with openly gay service members have been hurt by their non-discrimination policy. England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Israel are just some of the 24 nations that allow openly gay members in the military. Even South Africa allows openly gay service members.

Even though many opponents predicted problems in these countries before their bans were lifted, time proved them wrong. Researchers say not a single country with openly gay service members has reported any decrease in morale, recruitment, retention or cohesion. Researcher Aaron Belkin studied this issue for the Liberty Education Forum's recent white paper on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. He interviewed 100 experts around the globe, many of whom opposed their country's efforts to lift the ban on openly gay military personnel. Not one of the people he interviewed believed that their nation's military performance suffered when the ban was lifted.

3. U.S. soldiers already serve with openly gay service members from other countries. This joint service has created no problems for American personnel. The British military, our strongest ally in Iraq, has openly gay service members working alongside American forces. This has not caused any problems. Since the Persian Gulf War, United States forces have joined 20 joint military campaigns with other nations who have openly gay service members. A recent University of California study shows that in these 20 campaigns the American unit's cohesion, performance and morale did not suffer because of the presence of openly gay service members from other nations.

4. Supporters of the current policy often argue that allowing gay and lesbians service members would violate the privacy of heterosexual members. Again we can see what has happened in other countries who changed their anti-gay policies. Studies in England and Canada show very few complaints of sexual harassment involving homosexual members. For argument's sake, even if we concede this point, the U.S. military, by decade's end, will have private rooms for all sailors, Marines, soldiers, and airmen. The so-called privacy problem will be gone.

5. Even if some heterosexual members of the United States military have moral objections to homosexuals, that won't impact unit effectiveness. A Harvard research report examined hundreds of studies that showed a unit's effectiveness has nothing to do with whether or not members of the team liked each other.

6. The FBI, CIA, and Secret Service, along with most police and fire departments around the United States, now allow openly gay Americans to serve in their ranks. These non-discrimination policies have not hurt performance, professionalism, or morale.

7. There is strong sentiment to change this policy among both the public and the military. A recent Gallup poll of the American public shows 72% support the right of gays and lesbians to serve in uniform. A poll during the 2000 campaign showed 65% of Republicans in favor of gays and lesbians serving in uniform. A 1998 study of Army soldiers shows that only 36% oppose serving alongside openly gay and lesbian soldiers.

8. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is corrupted by some people as a way of avoiding military service. Research shows, and even the military admits, that a sizable percentage of those kicked out of the armed forces for being homosexual are actually heterosexual. They use the policy like a get out of jail free card. Eliminating the policy would close this loophole.

9. The military wastes millions of dollars each year investigating "violations" of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. With a huge budget deficit, this money could be better spent on projects that actually improve national defense.

Conclusion

More than 55 years ago, President Harry Truman desegregated the military. His courageous act received a hostile reaction from some Americans. Many of the same arguments made against President Truman's decision can be heard again today as a way of keeping openly gay Americans from serving this nation. Since World War II,110,000 Americans have been discharged from the military for being gay or lesbian. Tens of thousands of others have served in secrecy, with distinction. Some have given their lives in defense of freedom. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy tramples the principles they died protecting. It rips at the fabric of liberty that so many thousands have died defending. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy must be transformed into Don't Discriminate, Don't Surrender! [/Q]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 03:28 PM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:45 PM
[Q]Twenty-four nations allow gay individuals to openly serve in the military. And the U.S. armed forces has ample evidence that doing so has not created the problems they fear. Although not widely reported, an article was published in 2003 in Parameters, a publication of the U.S. Army, which reviewed the experiences of foreign military allies who abolished their ban on gay personnel. The article concluded that there was no negative impact on unit cohesion, morale, retention, or recruitment.

American troops have been serving with gay British soldiers in Iraq for the past 18 months. British military authorities have noted that there have been no problems. The British navy is so pleased with gay personnel that they are now actively recruiting gays and lesbians. Part of this effort includes allowing gay couples to live in housing previously reserved for married couples. Royal Navy Commodore Paul Docherty said they want to change the military’s culture so that gays will feel comfortable working there.[/Q]

http://www.counterbias.com/250.html
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 03:28 PM   #102
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby



Oh, and Irvine the military is NOT on a witch hunt to kick out gay members like these interpreters and such you are talking about. Do you mean to tell me 200 plus gay people were kicked out of the military because they "accidentally slipped up" and told something personal about there sex life? Hogwash. I'm sure most gays are perfectly capable of keeping there sex life a secret when they want to. These ppl chose to share there lifestyles with others and it went against the policy.

firstly, why the assumption that it's all about sex? do you realize that when you, as a straight man, talk about your wife, your children, your girlfriend, the date you went on, the pictures you put of your wife/girlfriend/children on your desk ... you are flaunting your sexual orientation, and you are doing things you wouldn't ever think twice about. nor should you. being gay is not just about sex. it's about being constitutively, which is to say physically and emotionally, attracted to your same gender.

it's a massive double standard, and you're scope is pretty narrow. you seem to be focusing on infantry, which is where you certainly have your strongest argument. but, as you know, the military is much bigger than that. here's a snippit from a WP article on this subject:






"The Defense Language Institute, at the Presidio of Monterey, is the primary foreign-language school for the Department of Defense. For decades, Russian was the dominant language taught. But since Sept. 11, 2001, the size of the Arabic class has soared. Of the roughly 3,800 students enrolled at the DLI, 832 are learning Arabic, 743 Korean, 353 Chinese and 301 Russian, with the remaining students scattered in other languages.

Many of the discharged gay linguists were studying Arabic or Korean, among the most rigorous taught at the DLI and most costly to the U.S. government. The DLI estimates the value of its 63-week Arabic language program -- not including room, board and the service member's salary -- at $33,500.

The Army gave Cathleen Glover a proficiency in Arabic, but it also typed the words "HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION" on her official discharge papers. The best job she could find was cleaning pools.

Glover looks like the standout soccer goalie she was in high school in rural Ohio. Her skin is tanned from a summer spent outdoors, her hair streaked blond by pool chemicals. Her backpack is crammed with books on Islam and the latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine. She shares an apartment in Adams Morgan with another discharged gay linguist, who works as a temp in a law firm. The two of them watch al-Jazeera on cable to keep their Arabic oiled.

Glover graduated from Miami University in Ohio in 1999 with a degree in political science. She'd spent a semester in Ireland studying conflict resolution. She was substitute teaching in Ohio, contemplating graduate school, when an Army recruiter called her parents' farm. The recruiter pitched the DLI. Glover thought that learning a language would prepare her for a career in foreign policy.

Glover knew she was gay. A private person by nature, she thought she could live under a rule such as "don't ask, don't tell."

"It sounds simple," she reasoned. "Don't say anything."

Glover arrived at the DLI after nine weeks of basic training. The campus was beautiful, studded with palm trees and overlooking Monterey Bay. Like Glover, many students had college degrees. Glover had hoped to study Russian, but her high scores on the language aptitude test bumped her into the more difficult Arabic program.

The new soldier immersed herself in modern Arabic. Six hours a day, five days a week, 63 weeks. Nights were occupied by homework and study groups. Some students were so intent on absorbing Middle Eastern culture that they wore Arab headdresses to class.

Glover's class was midway through the program on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The DLI campus went into lockdown. The only channel that came in on the TV in Glover's classroom was al-Jazeera. The students used their limited Arabic to piece together what had just occurred. In just a few hours, their value in the military had skyrocketed. An officer visited Glover's classroom to remind the linguists that their job was to defend the United States. "He told us not to get too close to the culture," she said.

Glover was maintaining a 3.2 grade-point average and leading study groups, but privately she was stressed. Being gay at a place such as the DLI had its advantages -- San Francisco was two hours up the coast, and the DLI campus was more academic than most military posts. But "don't ask, don't tell" was still the law of the land. She was making every contortion to hide the fact that she was a lesbian.

"What if a married person in the military couldn't tell anyone that his wife exists?" Glover said. "And if he did, he'd be fired?"

That was Glover's predicament. Her partner had moved from Ohio to an apartment in Monterey. Glover told no one, splitting her time between the post and her partner's place, and lying about her whereabouts on the sign-out log. She was afraid to be seen in public with her partner. The hiding took its toll; the four-year relationship ended. The breakup fueled Glover's anger toward "don't ask, don't tell."

Then came the surprise room inspection that snagged Alastair Gamble and his partner, raising the level of anxiety for gays at the DLI.

Glover's best friend was another gay linguist. He received orders to ship out to Fort Campbell, an Army post in Kentucky dreaded among gay service members. In 1999, Pfc. Barry Winchell was bashed to death in his barracks by a fellow solider for being gay. Rather than shipping out to Fort Campbell, Glover's friend declared his homosexuality and was discharged.

Glover graduated from the Arabic program in 2002, but emotionally she was sliding. Her first sergeant suggested she see a counselor. Finally, she confessed her problem: She was exhausted from hiding her identity. Confirming Glover's fears, the counselor asked her for the name and phone number of her commander. Not long after, she was ordered to see an Army psychiatrist.

Glover sat down at her computer. After a year of intense internal struggle, I have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of both the United States Army and my mental well-being that I inform you that I am a lesbian. She carried the letter in her pocket for two days. When she finally gave it to her commander, he accused her of lying. It's possible that he was looking the other way in order to keep her. In frustration, Glover wrote an essay about her experience living under "don't ask, don't tell" and mailed it to the Monterey County Herald.

Within a week, she was shipped to Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Tex., for intelligence training. In class one day, a sergeant used a mocking lisp as he talked about all the gay linguists discharged from the DLI.

Finally, Glover's letter-writing caught up with her. She was ordered to report to battalion headquarters, where the captain was holding a copy of the op-ed piece from the Monterey paper. She was recommended for a general discharge, a less-than-honorable characterization that could have meant no veterans' benefits and would send up a red flag to potential employers. With the help of an Army lawyer, she won an honorable discharge.

Glover's last day was March 24, 2003. "It was a day of feeling nothing," she said. She drove to Fort Hood to sign her paperwork. The hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles that usually stretched for acres were in Iraq.

She cleaned out her barracks room. In an act of symbolism, she left one of her Army uniforms -- her class dress uniform -- hanging in the closet.

Instead of relief, Glover felt a sense of disloyalty. She moved to Washington, where she applied for a job at the National Security Agency. Since her security clearance had been revoked, a background check would take months. She took a job with the pool company. In what she calls an act of "karmic irony," one of the pools she cleaned each week was owned by Pat Buchanan."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 03:29 PM   #103
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Now put up or shut up.....getting tired of BASELESS comments...that are mired in the shit of ones insecurities........

Show some evidence of studies that it is bad for morale.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 04:04 PM   #104
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Hey Dread, I would appreciate the courtesy of at least civility. I have yet to personally attack anyone on this forum and I would appreciate the same from you. Otherwise' I can only asssume you are an idiot. If you don't like my comments your welcome to not read them. I won't be bullied by you or anyone else on this forum because you disagree with my opinion. I'm in the military unlike most of you who are reading off some Harvard study or some Gay friendly web site or the NY times. I live it and I know what ppl in the military want. But just to back up my statements here is a blurb. And yes' I did read the last part about views softening. All I know is if 75% of the ppl in the Army don't want gays serving openly, then there will be MORALE problems!


2003 Military Times poll — We asked. You answered.
Military backs Bush more than civilians do — but not by much

Stories by Gordon Trowbridge
Times staff writer

How troops view gays, women, harassment

On a list of controversial social subjects, from women in combat to race relations to gays in the military, the Military Times Poll finds troops remarkably satisfied with the current state of military affairs.

But experts say the poll raises renewed concern on the issue of sexual harassment — an issue that’s hardly new to the military.

Among the polls findings:

•Four of five respondents, and almost two out of three minorities, said minorities receive better treatment in the military than society at large.

•More than two in three supported the idea of women serving in combat, though many suggested women should only get such assignments if they choose them.

“I don’t think men give women enough credit. I think they’re very capable,” said Sgt. 1st Class David Sayre, an active-duty marketing and advertising manager in the Montana Army National Guard. “There are some men who should not be in combat, and there are some women who shouldn’t be there either.”

•Nearly half of women surveyed said they had been the victim of sexual harassment in the military.

Experts said that number comes with several cautions. Because of the small number of women surveyed, the margin of error is high — plus or minus 9 percentage points.

And Laura Miller, a Rand Corp. sociologist who served on the congressional panel investigating the Air Force Academy’s sexual assault scandal, said polling on sexual harassment is notoriously tricky because of the differences in how those polled define harassment.

Still, observers said the figure is cause for concern.

“It’s clear that the military has not fully come on board with equality for women,” said Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and Boston University professor.

•Half of respondents said they supported keeping the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals. But only one in four said gays should be allowed to serve openly, a sharp difference from the U.S. public. Nearly eight in 10 Americans in a recent Gallup Poll said gays should serve openly.

Aaron Belkin, a researcher on gays in the military at the University of California-Santa Barbara, said these results and others indicate a softening of attitudes about homosexuals in the ranks.

“That harsh edge, the intensity of people’s attitudes, has changed,” he said. Other surveys, he said, show that although a majority of troops still oppose lifting the ban, the number of those strongly opposed has fallen.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 04-11-2005, 04:12 PM   #105
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Maybe its better if certain individuals agree to disagree before they get even more messy. Heaven knows no agreement will come out of this.

Ant.
__________________

__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com