Most Americans Support Gays in the Military, Poll Finds

Public attitudes about gays in the military have shifted dramatically since President Bill Clinton unveiled what became his administration's "don't ask, don't tell" policy 15 years ago today.

[Mark]

At least if we're open about it we can get some better statistics. Admitting you're gay won't get you a discharge so there won't be anybody feigning to be gay in order to get out of the service.

Leave it to Clinton to saddle us with a solution ala: smoke but don't inhale-what a putz he was.

[Rick in Kansas]

While Don't Ask/Don't Tell was a half-assed proposition that never fully lived up to its promise, it was better than the policy that exsisted prior, which could lead to a dishonorable discharge and a complete loss of benefits. While unlike during the draft era when people would feign being gay to avoid service, in the years of the avf that was far less likely to happen.
It's time to end discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military and hopefully with this increase in public support we can finally put an end to it.

[Groovyghoulie]

Send in "The Pink Brigade"!!! "Oh, I broke a nail", "Just toss the darn grenade", "That guy's cute, I'd hate to shoot him", "Where's Rambo when you need him".

The enemy would not attack them...they were all in drag!!!BWWAAHAHAHAHA.

If you dislike them so much, why not send them all into battle?

[nhjeff]

75% of the public supports repeal of DADT. When is this Democratic congress going to grow some testicles and start passing legislation that isn't proposed by Bush cronies?

[Nelson Diaz]

I don't understand why gays can't join the military. Women are allowed. Gays don't have to stop fighting to change a kotex pad or take a piss every 30 minutes.

[michael]

About 1/3 of women in military get pregnant...

well the times they are a changin

Does anyone think that Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, weren't GOOD SOLDIERS and MILITARY LEADERS?

[Gryph]

Mark wrote:

At least if we're open about it we can get some better statistics. Admitting you're gay won't get you a discharge so there won't be anybody feigning to be gay in order to get out of the service.
Leave it to Clinton to saddle us with a solution ala: smoke but don't inhale-what a putz he was.

Clinton only did that to get the Fundies off his case and to pass through some other legislation that they would have fought other wise.

[nhjeff]

Gryph wrote:

<quoted text>
Clinton only did that to get the Fundies off his case and to pass through some other legislation that they would have fought other wise.

I remember well the circumstances surrounding the DADT law. I know it isn't what Clinton intended, but the results and the implementation turned out as bad as anything else Congress or the military could have come up with.

I blame Clinton for three things: 1) He didn't get the leadership behind him before proposing to end the ban on G/L service members; 2) He homophobes dictate the terms of the ensuing law; and 3)He failed to make sure the law was implemented fairly.

DADT has turned out to be worse than the policy it replaced.

[zak]

Too bad 75% of the population will not support their sons or daughters serving. Maybe they feel opening the doors to the gays will help advert a draft?

Repeal DADT to end the early discharge abuses by both hetros and gays and end descrimination if this country does go back to the draft.

[Mark]

Gryph wrote:

<quoted text>
Clinton only did that to get the Fundies off his case and to pass through some other legislation that they would have fought other wise.

Not much of a champion. All he did was give gays the right to be invisible. Thanks for teaching me another pejorative term for a class of people. It really builds a sense of mutual respect. I'm a Christian-got any pejorative terms for gays that you like to use?

[Gryph]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I remember well the circumstances surrounding the DADT law. I know it isn't what Clinton intended, but the results and the implementation turned out as bad as anything else Congress or the military could have come up with.
I blame Clinton for three things: 1) He didn't get the leadership behind him before proposing to end the ban on G/L service members; 2) He homophobes dictate the terms of the ensuing law; and 3)He failed to make sure the law was implemented fairly.
DADT has turned out to be worse than the policy it replaced.

Yep and I wasn't at all happy about either policy.

[Gryph]

Mark wrote:

<quoted text> Not much of a champion. All he did was give gays the right to be invisible. Thanks for teaching me another pejorative term for a class of people. It really builds a sense of mutual respect. I'm a Christian-got any pejorative terms for gays that you like to use?

Are you a verse quoting Fundimentalist?

[Mac-7]

I notice that "most Americans" don't serve in the military and would be the last to know about gays in the military.

[Mark]

Gryph wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you a verse quoting Fundimentalist?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Scriptural truth is mainly useful if understood in the context of relationship with God. Otherwise, you're just studying philosophy. I think that quoting verses to people who have contempt for God is of little value to them, and can be offensive.

[Christopher]

nhjeff wrote:

75% of the public supports repeal of DADT. When is this Democratic congress going to grow some testicles and start passing legislation that isn't proposed by Bush cronies?

When the Repukians won't do everything in their power to stop that legislation that isn't started by them. Frankly, the Democrats have TRIED, many times over many years, to get rid of DADT and to make it so that homosexuals could serve OPENLY in the military.... the Repukes have blocked them at EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY TURN.

[Gryph]

Mark wrote:

<quoted text> I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Scriptural truth is mainly useful if understood in the context of relationship with God. Otherwise, you're just studying philosophy. I think that quoting verses to people who have contempt for God is of little value to them, and can be offensive.

Then you don't come under the heading of a Fundi or as its fully written Fundimentalist.

I have no problem with lots of Christians. Only those who think they are better and above everyone else, just because of what they believe.

[Mark]

Gryph wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you don't come under the heading of a Fundi or as its fully written Fundimentalist.
I have no problem with lots of Christians. Only those who think they are better and above everyone else, just because of what they believe.

I'm delighted to hear that you don't have a problem; never the less, I have friends who are Fundamentalist Christians, and friends who are homosexuals. Neither group can be generalized, and neither should be subjected to being addressed with pejorative terms. If you want to be respected, than perhaps give the respect that you hope to receive.

[Gryph]

Mark wrote:

<quoted text> I'm delighted to hear that you don't have a problem; never the less, I have friends who are Fundamentalist Christians, and friends who are homosexuals. Neither group can be generalized, and neither should be subjected to being addressed with pejorative terms. If you want to be respected, than perhaps give the respect that you hope to receive.

I give it where I see good hearted behavior, it doesn't matter who I'm talking with. My friends are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Pagan, black, white, red, etc...ad nausium. I don't put my friends or those who speak to me as the person I am in a box of who's who.

As to those that I was generalizing about, I didn't remember the names of the senators who with the right winged preachers etc...were the ones getting into Clinton's face about having GLBT soldiers. If I had remembered names I would have said them.

[Mark]

Gryph wrote:

<quoted text>
I give it where I see good hearted behavior, it doesn't matter who I'm talking with. My friends are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Pagan, black, white, red, etc...ad nausium. I don't put my friends or those who speak to me as the person I am in a box of who's who.
As to those that I was generalizing about, I didn't remember the names of the senators who with the right winged preachers etc...were the ones getting into Clinton's face about having GLBT soldiers. If I had remembered names I would have said them.

Makes me wonder if "those guys" had a good hearted term for the gays who wanted to be in the military. You have to be a friend to have a friend.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Mac-7 wrote:

I notice that "most Americans" don't serve in the military and would be the last to know about gays in the military.

BINGO!