Pentagon study: Gays could serve with no harm

[AllardChardon]

This is a continuation of a previous thread of mine on this subject, but with a new heading.


Pentagon study: Gays could serve with no harm
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon study that argues that gay troops could serve openly without hurting the military's ability to fight is expected to re-ignite debate this month on Capitol Hill over repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Officials familiar with the 10-month study's results have said a clear majority of respondents don't care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings hadn't been released.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who have both said they support repealing the law, were scheduled to discuss the findings with Congress Tuesday morning and with reporters Tuesday afternoon.

Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have mostly opposed repealing the law because they say efforts to do so are politically driven and dangerous at a time of two wars.

"This was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency of the United States," McCain told CNN's "State of the Union" last weekend.

"The military is at its highest point in recruitment and retention and professionalism and capability, so to somehow allege that this policy has been damaging the military is simply false," McCain said.

Democrats and gay rights groups counter that the study finally proves what they've known anecdotally for years: Most troops would accept an openly gay person in their units.

"It's what we expected. The atmosphere in the active-duty has changed," said a gay Air Force officer and co-founder of the advocacy group OutServe. The officer uses the pseudonym "JD Smith" to protect his identity.

The survey is based on responses by some 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses to more than a half million questionnaires distributed last summer. The study group, led by Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham, also visited various military bases and held town hall-style meetings with service members.

The findings of troop opinions would reflect the view of the broader population. According to a November survey by the Pew Research Center, 58 percent of Americans say they favor allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces while 27 percent oppose.

The House has already voted to overturn the law as part of a broader defense policy bill. But Senate Republicans have blocked the measure because they say not enough time has been allowed for debate on unrelated provisions in the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised a vote on the matter by the end of the year, after hearings can be held this week on the Pentagon study. Still, some gay rights groups have complained that Democratic leadership has done little to push for repeal before the new Congress takes over in January.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the majority leader is "very much committed to doing away with the ban this year" but that it was the GOP's fault for blocking the bill.

 

[sr71plt]

I continue to be less concerned that a gay in the military would do harm to the military (I don't think it would) than that it still would be a dangerous threat to the well-being of the gay individual.

We experience that type of redneck hate that Amicus, SquareJohn, JBJ, and Zeb, etc. demonstrate here on the discussion board. The real-life application of that is really, really threatening--in real life. It just takes one extremist hater in a squad to murder, maim, or harrass.

 

[AllardChardon]

True enough, it only takes one bully to spark mob mentality. As we have discussed previously, sr71plt, the gay soldier is the one at risk and, hopefully, he is wise to keep his sexual orientation to himself, for the time being.

 

[3113]

True enough, it only takes one bully to spark mob mentality. As we have discussed previously, sr71plt, the gay soldier is the one at risk and, hopefully, he is wise to keep his sexual orientation to himself, for the time being.

It's not wise. Not even for "the time being." Keep it secret, and you allow it to continue to be seen as evil, bad, shameful, unnatural and as something that SHOULD be beaten or killed. It's a win for the bullies, as that means their actions remain acceptable.

If you come out, as blacks did back during civil rights days, and women when they were fighting for the vote, and the bullies attack and are seen as bullies, then society begins to disapprove. People stop looking the other way, and bullies are made to account for their actions. Things change. It becomes NOT all right to lynch a black man. NOT all right to rape a woman. NOT all right to beat up a gay person.

Bigotry can never be erased. But it can be given society's approval or disapproval. We can be afraid of what gays who are openly gay will face in the military, but our fear of what hardships they may face is not reason enough to deny them their rights as American citizens. Nor should we urge them to keep their orientation secret rather than being open and proud as this simply means that the wrongs of such bigotry will stay hidden and accepted, rather than exposed and condemned.

 

[sr71plt]

It's not wise. Not even for "the time being." Keep it secret, and you allow it to continue to be seen as evil, bad, shameful, unnatural and as something that SHOULD be beaten or killed. It's a win for the bullies, as that means their actions remain acceptable.

If you come out, as blacks did back during civil rights days, and women when they were fighting for the vote, and the bullies attack and are seen as bullies, then society begins to disapprove. People stop looking the other way, and bullies are made to account for their actions. Things change. It becomes NOT all right to lynch a black man. NOT all right to rape a woman. NOT all right to beat up a gay person.

Bigotry can never be erased. But it can be given society's approval or disapproval. We can be afraid of what gays who are openly gay will face in the military, but our fear of what hardships they may face is not reason enough to deny them their rights as American citizens. Nor should we urge them to keep their orientation secret rather than being open and proud as this simply means that the wrongs of such bigotry will stay hidden and accepted, rather than exposed and condemned.

Nice politically correct theory--after all, it isn't your skin you're risking. The answer, of course, is for you and everyone else on that safe little soap box of yours to do like many did for the Jews in WWII. Don that "Gay" armband and be on the front line of stepping out en masse and declaring you are one too. (Since I believe everyone is actually bi, I'll be easy to convince.) Until then, nice theory, but I see all of your personal risk as being for someone else to shoulder.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Great Idea!

Lets try them out in the mess halls and clubs, to see how well they serve.

 

[sr71plt]

Rather evidences my point. As I knew JBJ would.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Of the people in the survey, I wonder how many were young enlisted men and women living in a barracks. I wonder how many were married men and women living with their spouses or officers. The reason I wonder about this is that the two groups would be likely to have drastically different responses.

I am thinking back to when I was in the Air Force, over half a century ago. I don't know how much things have changed, but there was no privacy to speak of for us, in contrast to those who lived in base housing or apartments in town or in the BOQ. We slept in narrow beds in large rooms with about twenty or thirty other men, and the shower was a cement room with about six shower heads, and you took showers with other men. If you look at Beetle Bailey comic strips, that would be an accurate depiction, at least so far as the housing part went.

This didn't bother anybody; we were all just guys, after all, and I believe most of us were more or less used to the nudity. We had shared showers with other boys in Physical Education classes and swum nude at the YMCA, and nobody thought anything of it. However, If I had been taking a shower with other men and they had been lusting for me, and I knew it, that might have been a different story. Keep in mind that I had a lot more hair back then and a lot less belly. Now, I would be flattered, but back then, I would have been pissed off.

I think this would have been akin to women taking showers and being joined by men, except the straight men would have been discomfitted then, just as the women would be now. Whether I would have ever gotten violent or not, I don't know, but I do know some men would have been.

What I am saying is that I believe on duty activities, including combat, would be no big deal, but housing of the troops would.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Of the people in the survey, I wonder how many were young enlisted men and women living in a barracks. I wonder how many were married men and women living with their spouses or officers. The reason I wonder about this is that the two groups would be likely to have drastically different responses.

I am thinking back to when I was in the Air Force, over half a century ago. I don't know how much things have changed, but there was no privacy to speak of for us, in contrast to those who lived in base housing or apartments in town or in the BOQ. We slept in narrow beds in large rooms with about twenty or thirty other men, and the shower was a cement room with about six shower heads, and you took showers with other men. If you look at Beetle Bailey comic strips, that would be an accurate depiction, at least so far as the housing part went.

This didn't bother anybody; we were all just guys, after all, and I believe most of us were more or less used to the nudity. We had shared showers with other boys in Physical Education classes and swum nude at the YMCA, and nobody thought anything of it. However, If I had been taking a shower with other men and they had been lusting for me, and I knew it, that might have been a different story. Keep in mind that I had a lot more hair back then and a lot less belly. Now, I would be flattered, but back then, I would have been pissed off.

I think this would have been akin to women taking showers and being joined by men, except the straight men would have been discomfitted then, just as the women would be now. Whether I would have ever gotten violent or not, I don't know, but I do know some men would have been.

What I am saying is that I believe on duty activities, including combat, would be no big deal, but housing of the troops would.

Dude, the world has changed in the last 50 years. This is the 21st century.

Further, I would add that in constructing a scientific study, the researchers would have accounted for variations in age, rank, sex, and living arrangements in their sample. It is impossible to survey everyone, so a representative sample is used that accounts for the diversity of the population. There are numerous detailed protocols used to develop the sample.

There will be variations within the groups, but overall, the result is usually spot-on.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

Things have changed since your time.

My son went thru basic training in 1990 and had a room he shared with one other recruit. The had a tv and a refrigerator, too.

We had WW2 barracks when I went thru in 1968.

My uncle went thru basic about the time you did and they had tents. 1955.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
I think this would have been akin to women taking showers and being joined by men, except the straight men would have been discomfitted then, just as the women would be now. Whether I would have ever gotten violent or not, I don't know, but I do know some men would have been.

What I am saying is that I believe on duty activities, including combat, would be no big deal, but housing of the troops would.

So, you'd be uncomfortable because you'd feel like a naked woman?

How do you behave around naked women, Box? Do you make them uncomfortable?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Dude, the world has changed in the last 50 years. This is the 21st century.

Further, I would add that in constructing a scientific study, the researchers would have accounted for variations in age, rank, sex, and living arrangements in their sample. It is impossible to survey everyone, so a representative sample is used that accounts for the diversity of the population. There are numerous detailed protocols used to develop the sample.

There will be variations within the groups, but overall, the result is usually spot-on.

Keep in mind this is a government agency taking the survey. They very likely wanted a certain result, and might well have written and distributed the surveys in a way that would have skewed the results in that direction.

I note almost 30% of the respondents are spouses. What do they know about it? I don't see why they would have even been considered. I also note about 70% of the respondents, including spouses, believe there would be either a positive effect or no effect at all. This means 30% of the respondents thought there would be a negative effect, which is a high enough percentage to consider, especially if that 30% consisted mostly of the barracks dwellers I mentioned.

Personally, I think it would be a great thing, but only if the positives outweighed the negatives, and I'm not sure this is the case.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Keep in mind this is a government agency taking the survey. They very likely wanted a certain result, and might well have written and distributed the surveys in a way that would have skewed the results in that direction.

Doesn't matter. When the full survey is released, it will describe the protocols used to create the sample, and it will also include all of the questions as well as all of the data. Opponents of the policy will attack any perceived deficiencies in the methodology. That is how survey research is done. An invalid study will fall apart upon examination. It's the scientific method.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Doesn't matter. When the full survey is released, it will describe the protocols used to create the sample, and it will also include all of the questions as well as all of the data. Opponents of the policy will attack any perceived deficiencies in the methodology. That is how survey research is done. An invalid study will fall apart upon examination. It's the scientific method.

Okay, so let's wait and see what the survey says after it is published. If they sent out half a million surveys, as they say, that is a very high percentage of the population, and it will be interesting to see how it is broken down and, more important, how the negative and positive responses were broken down.

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry, I think any survey of opinion willing to be registered is pretty irrelevant to the reality on the ground.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lets transfer the gays to the famous RAINBOW Division.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Infantry_Division_(United_States)

 

[Huckleman2000]

Sorry, I think any survey of opinion willing to be registered is pretty irrelevant to the reality on the ground.

I just saw someone on TV going on about how the survey shouldn't be taken seriously because it didn't ask "Do you think DADT should be repealed?"

I had no idea the armed forces were run as a democracy!

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I just saw someone on TV going on about how the survey shouldn't be taken seriously because it didn't ask "Do you think DADT should be repealed?"

I had no idea the armed forces were run as a democracy!

That was John McCain. Funny, he never thought the military was a democracy when he was running for president.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I continue to be less concerned that a gay in the military would do harm to the military (I don't think it would) than that it still would be a dangerous threat to the well-being of the gay individual.

We experience that type of redneck hate that Amicus, SquareJohn, JBJ, and Zeb, etc. demonstrate here on the discussion board. The real-life application of that is really, really threatening--in real life. It just takes one extremist hater in a squad to murder, maim, or harrass.

Hey asshole, point to a thread that I said I hate gays? Dickhead.

 

[Safe_Bet]

It's not wise. Not even for "the time being." Keep it secret, and you allow it to continue to be seen as evil, bad, shameful, unnatural and as something that SHOULD be beaten or killed. It's a win for the bullies, as that means their actions remain acceptable.

If you come out, as blacks did back during civil rights days, and women when they were fighting for the vote, and the bullies attack and are seen as bullies, then society begins to disapprove. People stop looking the other way, and bullies are made to account for their actions. Things change. It becomes NOT all right to lynch a black man. NOT all right to rape a woman. NOT all right to beat up a gay person.

Bigotry can never be erased. But it can be given society's approval or disapproval. We can be afraid of what gays who are openly gay will face in the military, but our fear of what hardships they may face is not reason enough to deny them their rights as American citizens. Nor should we urge them to keep their orientation secret rather than being open and proud as this simply means that the wrongs of such bigotry will stay hidden and accepted, rather than exposed and condemned.

Nice politically correct theory--after all, it isn't your skin you're risking. The answer, of course, is for you and everyone else on that safe little soap box of yours to do like many did for the Jews in WWII. Don that "Gay" armband and be on the front line of stepping out en masse and declaring you are one too. (Since I believe everyone is actually bi, I'll be easy to convince.) Until then, nice theory, but I see all of your personal risk as being for someone else to shoulder.

It's funny.... I just got off the phone with a couple of my friends from back in Cali. They are part of a predominately military oriented group who used to congregate at our house on weekends as sort of a "safe house" (we lived <4 miles from MirMar Marine Air Station and <10 miles north of Naval Air Station North Island).

They were laughing about this study. They think it's hilarious because everyone except for the senior officer ranks already KNOWS who's gay/lesbian or not. The troops just don't give a shit. The VERY select few, according to them, that do have issues with it keep their mouths shut because they would get THEIR asses beat daily by ALL of their squadron mates if they every said anything.

 

[sr71plt]

Hey asshole, point to a thread that I said I hate gays? Dickhead.

Go fish. It's fundamental to the whole ball of wax of your posting history here. You can't help yourself. You hate everything.

 

[AllardChardon]

Thank you, Amy, for that breath of fresh air. I do love California for their liberal thinkers, wherever they may be (stationed or not)!

I must ask, was anyone in that group asked any survey questions?

 

[sr71plt]

It's funny.... I just got off the phone with a couple of my friends from back The VERY select few, according to them, that do have issues with it keep their mouths shut because they would get THEIR asses beat daily by ALL of their squadron mates if they every said anything.

That's the rub, I think. Soldiers are going to give the answers that are expected of them; that's the way they do it in the military. This doesn't have much of anything to do with how they will respond to real life (and neither does your friends saying everything is hunky dory, I'm afraid).

 

[TE999]

Having served in the military in the 1960's with Gay and Lesbian personnel, some of whom were friends of mine, I think this whole DADT business is ridiculous. No one in my squadron gave a damn what someone did off duty or what sex they preferred, if you did your job that was enough.

Yeah, there were 'haters', just like in civilian life, but they were in the minority and pretty much hung together because no one else would associate with them except when on duty.

The sooner this DADT farce is over, the better.

 

[Safe_Bet]

That's the rub, I think. Soldiers are going to give the answers that are expected of them; that's the way they do it in the military. This doesn't have much of anything to do with how they will respond to real life (and neither does your friends saying everything is hunky dory, I'm afraid).

No.

This is how they DO respond in real life. This is how they are currently living their lives and their careers.

BTW, if I heard this from just one or two of our military friends it would be one thing, but it is pretty damn universal.

Maybe things were different when you were in the military, but now days, I think the enlisted and junior officers are a lot smarter and better grounded than the older, set in their ways Generals and Admirals who "think" they know what's going on. Probably has something to do with actually have gone to school with openly gay people.