Wash. Times' Gaffney falsely claims Americans "overwhelmingly oppose" gays serving in military
In a Washington Times column, Frank Gaffney falsely asserted that Americans "overwhelmingly ... oppose conferring on homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender individuals and hermaphrodites a nonexistent 'right' to serve openly in the military." In fact, numerous polls show "overwhelmingly" high support for allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
Gaffney claims "American people" oppose gays in the military
From Gaffney's February 2 column in The Washington Times:
When the dust settles on this battle, my bet is that the American people and their elected representatives will continue overwhelmingly to oppose conferring on homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender individuals and hermaphrodites a nonexistent "right" to serve openly in the military. We will thus avoid breaking the all-volunteer force, and it will be, instead, Mr. Obama's standing as commander in chief that will have suffered further grievous and perhaps irreparable harm. [The Washington Times, 2/2/10]
Numerous polls find strong support for gays serving openly in the military
Gallup: 69 percent "in favor of military service by openly gay men and lesbians." Results of a May 2009 USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that "69% of Americans in favor of military service by openly gay men and lesbians."
Quinnipiac: 56 percent say "ban on openly gay men and women in the military should be repealed." An April 2009 Quinnipiac poll concluded, "The ban on openly gay men and women in the military should be repealed, American voters say 56-37 percent, including 50-43 percent among voters with family in the military."
CNN: poll shows "81 percent of respondents believe openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military." A January 15, 2009, CNN.com article reported: "Public opinion appears to be shifting on the matter. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted December 19-21 found that 81 percent of respondents believe openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, while 17 percent said they shouldn't."
Washington Post: 75 percent "said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve." Results from a July 2008 ABC News/Washington Post poll indicated that 75 percent of respondents support allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military. A July 19, 2008, Washington Post article reported, "Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993."
Wash. Times has a history of anti-gay rhetoric, including smears of gays in the military
Newspaper's attacks include warnings against "gay agenda," smears of gays in the military, and minimizing AIDS epidemic. Media Matters for America has compiled an extensive -- though by no means all-inclusive -- list of anti-gay rhetoric since the late 1980s, including the paper's warnings against the "gay agenda," attacks on the possibility of gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, minimizing of the AIDS epidemic, and attacks on gay relationships and gay rights.

















Plus, there is a lot of evidence out there from other Armies around the world who have done this, and you know, nothing "bad" happened. Take the IDF for example. What I would consider possibly one of the best fighting forces in the world (not better than us of course), they allow gays to serve openly. Nothing has happened to the IDF.
I mean, what are these guys scared of anyway?
The cost.
How do you separate all the various groups by their sexual prefrences?
Huh? Why would anyone even think of doing that?
It's how it's done now.
Why not try this on a national level before experimenting with the military? No longer have male/female latrines, showers, dressing rooms, etc... See if society accepts it.
Furthermore, as a member of the military, you may share a tent with females but there will be a heavy partition between you and them and if you are caught going thru it, you are at risk (your word against any other females in the room) of breaking GO1. As you know, in tent quiet hours are 24/7 and if a member of the opposite sex is caught in a billet of the other it's a bust.
No you didn't say anything about showering either. LOL
According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the issue is professionalism.
If you were hospitalized you wouldn't have any problem with someone the opposite sex assisting you with a bedpan or bathing - would you?
Unless you use rest rooms to have sex.
About the restroom sex comment. No I never have, but I read that interstate rest/bus stops are common gay meeting spots.
Mark all that apply.
I am:
Straight-
Gay-
Bi-
Trans-
Other- [explain below]
________________________________________________
Wow. You read that, did you? Was it written on the stall wall in the airport restroom you were hanging out in?
From my experience, all that were kicked out knew they were gay before they joined and decided they "wanted" out! They used DADT as an excuse for early out.
If you agree that they shouldn't be kicked out, what's your problem with DADT being repealed?
I'm still trying figure out why you keep bringing gender into this. DADT was put in place to accommodate bigots in and out of the military and it's going to be repealed. The gender signs and questions will still be there.
You do realize, of course, that since 1994 you have been serving with homosexuals? In essence, if you're straight, nothing will change. If you're gay, you won't have to fear a witchhunt.
let me guess you didn't think that was a good idea either right? even though it.....well it worked.
maybe thats why it is being done this way because there is a precedent. it was tried and succeeded.
There are no mens/ladies rooms. ONE bathroom in restaurants.
Give it up with the showers, please . .
Section the showers off. How expensive could that be??
Society has nothing to do with repealing DADT. I'm a part of 'society' and if they're happy, I'm happy . .
This is none of our business. Let the military handle it . .
It's simple. Just think about it.
If everyone's soooo hung up about it, just try this:
The lesbians with the hetero guys.
The gay men with the women.
Or, we can just do what all the other countries do.
Just keep the guys together and the women together. No problem. Yawn.
What's that suppose to mean?
"Everyone will need their own room"
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel . .
Gay men don't want to have sex with straight men. They want to have a relationship with another gay man. So there's no issue with a gay man and a straight man bunking together, showering together, unless the straight guy is a homophobe and bigot.
"why should a hetero be segregated?"
Never suggested that.
I said segregate the homosexuals. That should satisfy the no-brain, drooling moral values dimwits, right?
C'mon. Play along. Or, are you just trying to raise a few hackles? Doin' a little trolling tonight?
Hey everyone. Don't fall for this. Waste of time.
http://www.flayme.com/troll/
One more post to you. I have a no-feed-the-trolls policy.
You are so busy trolling, you completely ignored my point. Here it is again (read it slowly this time):
"we can just do what all the other countries do.
Just keep the guys together and the women together."
See? The world won't come crashing in, if we just get with the 21st century and do what everyone else is doing, all will be well.
You're so hung up on irrational fears, you can't be taken seriously. Then you wonder why everyone makes fun of you. :-(
I never sensed everyone was making made fun of me. Must be off my game.
Typical ruse by trolls.
Get off-topic, try different idiotic "topics" to use up space on the thread.
And then theres always the "The cost.
How do you separate all the various groups by their sexual prefrences? " argument brought up. Look at any other institution that allows gay people to work, live and socialize together openly. There are far fewer instances of sexual harassment and assault than in traditionally "segregated" institutions.
1991 - C Co 35 ENG BN, OSUT
And no, I'm not gay, and yes I knew gay guys who served with me, and no I never felt uncomfortable around them. The only thing I cared about, male or female, gay or straight, is can they do their job? Their personal life was none of my business.
So, unlike as you say, it's not "experimenting with the military." It's bringing the military to equal footing with the rest of society that has alrady decided discrimnation based on sexual orientation is not only stupid, but illegal. Last I heard, the military is a federal entity and so show be required to follow federal hiring guidelines.
or better yet if its easier for you watch Men of Honor
You already serve with gay soldiers. Just exactly what do you think is going to change?
When deployed, I may serve with gay soldiers, but at home station the Airmen in my charge (as far as I know) are not gay. I'm not naive. There are most likely a few gay Airmen on base but I've never seen an openly queer couple.
What do I think will change? Not sure. What would change if society lifted all gender rules?
Why can't males/females use the same restroom, locker-room, dressing-rooms, etc...? Wouldn't it make life easier?
since you used that term it means you do have problems with gays. Even if DADT were repealed, you probably won't see many open gay couples on post anyway.
Your argument about co-ed facilities is worn out as well.
Try again.
BTW, co-ed facilities should be the standard.
GMAFB
Bottom Line: Pointless arguement.
One consistent point I made throughout this discussion was "pro" gender neutral facilities. Locker rooms, restrooms and even saunas fall into the "facilities" category.