I think you greatly underestimate how their opinions change when they live in a military environment. Its not like working at Wal-Mart and going home at night.
I’m not aware of any polls which track changing opinions of service members between the time they enlist and later in their careers. If you have such a poll I would love to see the results. There are polls which track overall attitudes toward homosexuality in the military at various times, and they show startling changes in acceptance over the past couple of decades.
No polls just real world experience. I spent 2 days with new recruits recently and trust me once they have some time under their belts things change. It was a topic of discussion given the current tone in Washington.
Its been covered ad nauseum here but some choose to ignore the issues that this policy presents in the real world and not in fantasy land where some people choose to deal with these things.
Frankly, if someone wouldn’t enlist; would quit or not re-enlist because he/she had to serve with openly gay soldiers, I’m not sure that is the quality of soldier we need.
I think you greatly underestimate how their opinions change when they live in a military environment. Its not like working at Wal-Mart and going home at night.
I’m not aware of any polls which track changing opinions of service members between the time they enlist and later in their careers. If you have such a poll I would love to see the results. There are polls which track overall attitudes toward homosexuality in the military at various times, and they show startling changes in acceptance over the past couple of decades.
No polls just real world experience. I spent 2 days with new recruits recently and trust me once they have some time under their belts things change. It was a topic of discussion given the current tone in Washington.
Its been covered ad nauseum here but some choose to ignore the issues that this policy presents in the real world and not in fantasy land where some people choose to deal with these things.
Frankly, if someone wouldn’t enlist; would quit or not re-enlist because he/she had to serve with openly gay soldiers, I’m not sure that is the quality of soldier we need.
[reply
Frankly, if someone wouldn’t enlist; would quit or not re-enlist because he/she had to serve with openly gay soldiers, I’m not sure that is the quality of soldier we need.
Yeah, because we want someone who is socially liberated, not someone who is willing to die and kill for their country.
60 years ago, the same argument was infamously used against integration. This is all a moot point, DADT will end, sooner rather than later (Collins voted in favor in the Senate Committee, Nelson and Lieberman are on board, and the house passed the bill 234-194). Astonishingly, a CNN poll showed 78% wanted DADT repealed (including half of Republicans).
Yeah, because we want someone who is socially liberated, not someone who is willing to die and kill for their country.
You forgot to add, “except when they are openly gay. Sometimes being willing to die and kill for your country just ain’t good enough!”
When the minority undermines the majority and makes the job that much more difficult then there is a problem. As far as the percentage of the general public who feel that it should be repealed I personally don’t care what the public thinks on this matter.
The media has done a very good job of leading us to believe that we should be accepting of everything but there are times when what you are or what you believe has a larger effect. I would say most people are tolerant but put them in the situations soldiers sailors and Marines live in and their tune might change. That’s not even getting into the logistics of the situation which are pretty overwhelming given the work/living arrangements
[reply
Frankly, if someone wouldn’t enlist; would quit or not re-enlist because he/she had to serve with openly gay soldiers, I’m not sure that is the quality of soldier we need.
Yeah, because we want someone who is socially liberated, not someone who is willing to die and kill for their country.
But only if they are straight, right?
Nothing to do with “socially liberated” and everything to do with a person being able to do their job. If having a gay man in the barracks will offend their sensibilities to that degree, I’m not confident in how they can perform as a soldier.
I think once this is repealed we’ll be quite surprised at the amount of gays in the military. I’m not sure what the politicians are more afraid of… openly gays enlisting or finding out how many are already enlisted.
[reply
Frankly, if someone wouldn’t enlist; would quit or not re-enlist because he/she had to serve with openly gay soldiers, I’m not sure that is the quality of soldier we need.
Yeah, because we want someone who is socially liberated, not someone who is willing to die and kill for their country.
But only if they are straight, right?
Nothing to do with “socially liberated” and everything to do with a person being able to do their job. If having a gay man in the barracks will offend their sensibilities to that degree, I’m not confident in how they can perform as a soldier.
So during the time you served you would have been om with it?
[reply
Frankly, if someone wouldn’t enlist; would quit or not re-enlist because he/she had to serve with openly gay soldiers, I’m not sure that is the quality of soldier we need.
Yeah, because we want someone who is socially liberated, not someone who is willing to die and kill for their country.
But only if they are straight, right?
Nothing to do with “socially liberated” and everything to do with a person being able to do their job. If having a gay man in the barracks will offend their sensibilities to that degree, I’m not confident in how they can perform as a soldier.
So during the time you served you would have been om with it?
I’ve never served, but would be completely ok with it. I’ve been a member of the YMCA. I’ve been in the shower plenty of times with a gay man…
I think once this is repealed we’ll be quite surprised at the amount of gays in the military. I’m not sure what the politicians are more afraid of… openly gays enlisting or finding out how many are already enlisted.
I think you are right. But to be honest, I don’t think allowing openly gay men/women to serve will change much. There will be plenty of gays that remain pretty private with their sexuality (I don’t mean closeted).
So during the time you served you would have been om with it?
I’ve never served, but would be completely ok with it.
Agreed, I think that some are overplaying the “Walk a mile in my boots” argument by predicting that the most liberal folks with regard to DADT would completely change their viewpoints if only they spent some time in the armed services. I have way too many gay friends who have suffered under discrimination to ever support such a policy. The primary issue will be people who have difficulty putting aside negative bias against gays, and let that bias interfere with their job. This already played out with segregationists who were forced to accept integration. This will be much easier, since gays are already serving honorably, while under an unfair policy .
Nothing to do with “socially liberated” and everything to do with a person being able to do their job. If having a gay man in the barracks will offend their sensibilities to that degree, I’m not confident in how they can perform as a soldier.
My comment was meant to address one point - and one point only. Someone said that a soldier isn’t “the quality of solder we need” if he is against serving with an openly gay soldier. I strongly, strongly disagree with that. I bet you would find plenty of competent soldiers who were against gays being open in the military. And many of those soldiers will be remembered this coming Monday.
I will also say that some of those soldiers that we remember on Monday were probably gay. They deserve just as much respect as those who weren’t - and I certainly would make no distinction.
If we only allowed soldiers to serve if they are okay with sharing a barracks or fox hole with a gay soldier - then we would probably not have enough soldiers to fill the services.
As for allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. I did not serve in the military and feel that what I think does not matter. I will defer to those who have served or are actively serving. But since you’re probably wondering. If the military believes that it would not hurt their mission to allow openly gay soldiers to serve - then I would be all for it. As others have said - many gay soldiers are already serving this country with honor. But again - I defer to those who have/are served.
I have way too many gay friends who have suffered under discrimination to ever support such a policy. The primary issue will be people who have difficulty putting aside negative bias against gays, and let that bias interfere with their job. This already played out with segregationists who were forced to accept integration. This will be much easier, since gays are already serving honorably, while under an unfair policy .
Your friends suffered under the military’s policy? I made the point in an earlier post that the higher-ups are continually making the decisions as to what will work best for their mission. It’s not a democracy, and there are relatively few who have to come to agreement to make changes. You might be able to make the argument that these folks are senior, mostly older, and have a poor sense of the actual effects. Personally, I don’t think the waves would be that big, as there are already rules having to do with military bearing that prevent military members in uniform from much in the way of affection (PDA Public Display of Affection). One of my ex-wives and I were both active duty at the same time, and had to stay vigilant in this regard.
So during the time you served you would have been om with it?
I’ve never served, but would be completely ok with it.
Agreed, I think that some are overplaying the “Walk a mile in my boots” argument by predicting that the most liberal folks with regard to DADT would completely change their viewpoints if only they spent some time in the armed services. I have way too many gay friends who have suffered under discrimination to ever support such a policy. The primary issue will be people who have difficulty putting aside negative bias against gays, and let that bias interfere with their job. This already played out with segregationists who were forced to accept integration. This will be much easier, since gays are already serving honorably, while under an unfair policy .
Not the most liberal but the ones who are ok with it as long as it doesn’t effect them. Once they learn what their life will be like as a soldier in war time many change their tune. The most liberal are goiing to stick to their guns because otherwise they would have to call themselves all of those negative terms they use when describing those that have different views.
So during the time you served you would have been om with it?
I’ve never served, but would be completely ok with it.
Agreed, I think that some are overplaying the “Walk a mile in my boots” argument by predicting that the most liberal folks with regard to DADT would completely change their viewpoints if only they spent some time in the armed services. I have way too many gay friends who have suffered under discrimination to ever support such a policy. The primary issue will be people who have difficulty putting aside negative bias against gays, and let that bias interfere with their job. This already played out with segregationists who were forced to accept integration. This will be much easier, since gays are already serving honorably, while under an unfair policy .
Not the most liberal but the ones who are ok with it as long as it doesn’t effect them. Once they learn what their life will be like as a soldier in war time many change their tune. The most liberal are goiing to stick to their guns because otherwise they would have to call themselves all of those negative terms they use when describing those that have different views.
Why do you think that allowing gay soldiers will negatively impact a straight soldier in war time?
Its been covered multiple times in multiple threads and is the prevailing opinion within the military.
And its a fact not a theory. Unit cohesion alone would suffer greatly. Thats a big enough reason for me.
I know that might seem hard for you to grasp but its a reality and doesnt make those soldiers who wouldnt accept it bad. It just means they are human and it goes to show that contrary to what people want to force down others throats, not everyone is ok with it.
Then iof course theres the logistics which would be mind boggling and hurt the military for years to come at a time when its stretched pretty thin.
Nothing to do with “socially liberated” and everything to do with a person being able to do their job. If having a gay man in the barracks will offend their sensibilities to that degree, I’m not confident in how they can perform as a soldier.
My comment was meant to address one point - and one point only. Someone said that a soldier isn’t “the quality of solder we need” if he is against serving with an openly gay soldier. I strongly, strongly disagree with that. I bet you would find plenty of competent soldiers who were against gays being open in the military. And many of those soldiers will be remembered this coming Monday.
I will also say that some of those soldiers that we remember on Monday were probably gay. They deserve just as much respect as those who weren’t - and I certainly would make no distinction.
If we only allowed soldiers to serve if they are okay with sharing a barracks or fox hole with a gay soldier - then we would probably not have enough soldiers to fill the services.
As for allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. I did not serve in the military and feel that what I think does not matter. I will defer to those who have served or are actively serving. But since you’re probably wondering. If the military believes that it would not hurt their mission to allow openly gay soldiers to serve - then I would be all for it. As others have said - many gay soldiers are already serving this country with honor. But again - I defer to those who have/are served.
I can understand the idea of deferring to military leaders on the issue. But that’s what makes the filibuster odd, because under the amendment, the military gets the final sign off on implementation.