Gays in the Military, Part N

[Annika L]

I just read a pair of fascinating facts in Harper's Index! (Yes, I know that Harper's is far from a reliable source of information, but they're still good for a laugh now and then.)



Percentage of Americans who support allowing "homosexuals" to serve in the military: 59

Percentage of Americans who support allowing "gay men and lesbians" to serve in the military: 70


My first response to this was, wow, that's shockingly progressive!

My second response was OMG, Americans are really eager to kill off the homosexual population! (I mean, yeah, they won't let us be elementary or highschool teachers, but sure, we can die to defend our country!)

But hot on the heels of those two responses was hey, why such a large difference when the wording was changed??

I think that most people, when they hear "homosexual" think (without thinking) of "anyone who engages in homosexual activity"...not just "people who engage *solely* in homosexual activity".

If this is the case, then the first statistic listed includes bisexuals, while the second (with significantly higher public support) excludes bisexuals! So more people are ok with the notion of gays in the military, as long as they don't have to put up with us evil bisexuals! LOLOL :tongue:

Thanks, America...by all means, keep me out of your military...if you're sure this is what you want, then I am ready and willing to not serve!

But I am *really* curious: if we do finally decide that we're ok with gays and lesbians serving in the military, and if I (having a longterm female partner) would enlist...would I be in trouble if it was discovered that I'm also attracted to men?? I mean, if we're ok with a lesbian serving, but uncomfortable with bisexuals...wouldn't disclosing my interest in men throw me into that dangerous bisexual spotlight? :eek:

(Ah, the water is so much more comfy out here in the deep end! :tong:)

[elian]

What a strange, wonderful world we live in..It doesn't surprise me at all that you can change public opinion simply by changing the words..statistics are great.

A lot of people here seem to do a lot of things out of empathy without regard for logic and facts - votes for "Kennedy" and "John Hancock" get elected to political office even though the actual people on the ticket have nothing to do with what those voters REMEMBER when they cast the vote.

[Realist]

Whatever they do today, it's certainly better than when I was in the military! From '59 to the early '60s, in my unit in Germany, if any service member was caught in a same-gender sexual situation, there were swift and severe actions. I believe the normal sentences were about 9 years in Leavenworth!

I was in a two-year relationship with another male and the tension and fear of being caught made us both paranoid. No International spies were ever more cautious, or illusive, than we two lovers were!

However, I can attest to the fact that being bisexual had no derogatory implications for our duties, or responsibilities. He, especially, was a dedicated and proficient professional, with skills and abilities were generally superior to his peers. I also felt dedicated and motivated to serve my country and honestly fulfilled the duties I was assigned. We both were promoted ahead of most of those in our same career fields, which indicated to me that we were successful at achieving goals.

It's asinine to assume that one would not be a credit to himself, his unit, and the country, because he had a different sexual orientation than the majority.

[Annika L]

Hi Realist,

I just wanted to make sure it was clear that my post has nothing to do about actual military policy...that's a whole other barrel of worms, and I'm happy to leave that fight to others. My post in no way reflects on members of the service. I'm absolutely sure the people of the military are doing their best and will continue to do their best to formulate the best policy they can, given whatever the current laws happen to be.

My post is about the American people...our society...the people that, if I *was* to enlist, I would be willing to lay down my life for...and the people who ultimately drive the laws that the military must then scramble to create policy to accommodate.

These were the people polled, and that I was speculating about.

[TaylorMade]

I just read a pair of fascinating facts in Harper's Index! (Yes, I know that Harper's is far from a reliable source of information, but they're still good for a laugh now and then.)



My first response to this was, wow, that's shockingly progressive!

My second response was OMG, Americans are really eager to kill off the homosexual population! (I mean, yeah, they won't let us be elementary or highschool teachers, but sure, we can die to defend our country!)

But hot on the heels of those two responses was hey, why such a large difference when the wording was changed??

I think that most people, when they hear "homosexual" think (without thinking) of "anyone who engages in homosexual activity"...not just "people who engage *solely* in homosexual activity".

If this is the case, then the first statistic listed includes bisexuals, while the second (with significantly higher public support) excludes bisexuals! So more people are ok with the notion of gays in the military, as long as they don't have to put up with us evil bisexuals! LOLOL :tongue:

Thanks, America...by all means, keep me out of your military...if you're sure this is what you want, then I am ready and willing to not serve!

But I am *really* curious: if we do finally decide that we're ok with gays and lesbians serving in the military, and if I (having a longterm female partner) would enlist...would I be in trouble if it was discovered that I'm also attracted to men?? I mean, if we're ok with a lesbian serving, but uncomfortable with bisexuals...wouldn't disclosing my interest in men throw me into that dangerous bisexual spotlight? :eek:

(Ah, the water is so much more comfy out here in the deep end! :tong:)

I don't even think the people that answered caught the nuances of the question. Some people just read a question for what it is.

*Taylor*

[citystyleguy]

...i deal with stats all day long at work, and this thread is a prime example why all must tread with great care in citing stats or forming opinion based on said stats;

But I am *really* curious: if we do finally decide that we're ok with gays and lesbians serving in the military, and if I (having a longterm female partner) would enlist...would I be in trouble if it was discovered that I'm also attracted to men?? I mean, if we're ok with a lesbian serving, but uncomfortable with bisexuals...wouldn't disclosing my interest in men throw me into that dangerous bisexual spotlight?

i don't believe you would have a problem with being identified as a bisexual; if the term had been included, the resulting stat would have been the same. when building a questionaire, great care must be given to the actual terms used.

in this case, those respondent(s) could precieve the term homosexual within a hostile perception, given such descriptors as provided by religionista's, etc.; where as gays, lesbians, may be perceived as non-threatning terms, and therefore acceptable to said respondent(s).

hope this helps!

[Annika L]

citystyle,


(Yes, I know that Harper's is far from a reliable source of information, but they're still good for a laugh now and then.)

(Ah, the water is so much more comfy out here in the deep end! :tong:)

I think this sums it up pretty well.

Taylor, I'm sure they *didn't* analyze the terms when they answered. That was my point: given that, why the difference in response? At some unthinking gut-level, there must have been a difference in how the question was perceived.

[Realist]

Annika,

Not that it matters what I think, but I have no problems with what you said. I know you are truthful, say what you feel, and I did not try to read anything into your statement.

It was your opinion and I'm good with that.

[mikey3000]

...My second response was OMG, Americans are really eager to kill off the homosexual population! (I mean, yeah, they won't let us be elementary or highschool teachers, but sure, we can die to defend our country!)

What? Gays in America aren't allowed to be teachers? Really? How would they know? Is that a question on the job applications? Do you put it on your resumes? I find that hard to swallow.

[Annika L]

What? Gays in America aren't allowed to be teachers? Really? How would they know? Is that a question on the job applications? Do you put it on your resumes? I find that hard to swallow.

I wasn't referring to any written policy. Again, my post was about the American people and public sentiment. And yes, there is an alarming amount of sentiment here that says that gays should be kept out of the classroom. There are fears that gay teachers will normalize homosexuality for students, that gay teachers will use their power to intentionally convey gay-positive messages or otherwise "pursue their agenda" with students, and even that gay teachers constitute a sexual abuse hazard to the students.

These concerns exist in your country as well. I know gay and bisexual Canadian teachers who take pains to keep their sexuality hidden, specifically because they are concerned about fallout from the public and administration, should it become known.

[just4mefc]

What? Gays in America aren't allowed to be teachers? Really? How would they know? Is that a question on the job applications? Do you put it on your resumes? I find that hard to swallow.

To the contrary, the Texas GOP platform 2010, goes even further in attacking homosexuals, adding:

We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Full link here...
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/tx-gop-platform-jail-mexicans-criminalize-sodomy-gay-marriage-felony/

[sammie19]

To the contrary, the Texas GOP platform 2010, goes even further in attacking homosexuals, adding:

We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Full link here...
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/tx-gop-platform-jail-mexicans-criminalize-sodomy-gay-marriage-felony/

The last sentence proposes giving the anti-homosexuality lobby rather a free hand doesn't it? Do what they like and no prosecution? Do they really mean what that sentence says?

[DuckiesDarling]

What? Gays in America aren't allowed to be teachers? Really? How would they know? Is that a question on the job applications? Do you put it on your resumes? I find that hard to swallow.

Mikey, that is at the heart of ENDA, a bill currently before our Congress to end discrimination on the basis of sexuality in all professions that recieve federal funding.

[bigbadmax]

In the UK it may be legal to be gay/lesbian/bi and serve in the armed forces but it does not mean that they are tollerated....


discuss??????

[Annika L]

The last sentence proposes giving the anti-homosexuality lobby rather a free hand doesn't it? Do what they like and no prosecution? Do they really mean what that sentence says?

It's what they'd genuinely like, and seemingly what they intend to pursue. The quote was from the Texas GOP *platform*, not actual law.

That a major political party (even if it's just the branch located in one state) would have such disregard for justice, the rights of a significant portion of the population, and just long-term consequences...well, at the very least, it makes me embarrassed to be associated with the society that fuels it.

[just4mefc]

The last sentence proposes giving the anti-homosexuality lobby rather a free hand doesn't it? Do what they like and no prosecution? Do they really mean what that sentence says?

Correct Sammie. This is the Texas GOP Platform. Their Agenda for 2010 and forward.

If the Texas GOP succeeds current laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination would be repealed. In addition, the platform calls for reinstatement of Sodomy laws that were removed years ago by the US supreme court as being unconstitutional. Once removed it would be a felony to have anal or oral sex and would lead to jail time.

No mention as too whether the Texas GOP having their heads up their own asses would be sodomy and therefore lead to them arresting themselves :rolleyes:

[just4mefc]

It's what they'd genuinely like, and seemingly what they intend to pursue. The quote was from the Texas GOP *platform*, not actual law.

That a major political party (even if it's just the branch located in one state) would have such disregard for justice, the rights of a significant portion of the population, and just long-term consequences...well, at the very least, it makes me embarrassed to be associated with the society that fuels it.

Annika,

what really scares me is the National GOP has not taken any stance against the Texas GOP. Complete silence!!! They appear to want the Texas gop to push the agenda to the extreme then when they need it, after drawing the crazies to their side and increasing their numbers they will have a mea culpa and after the fact say "that was just texas we never said we agree with them"

[12voltman59]

Just gonna keep my comments limited to the matter of pollling and how questions are asked and what responses you get---it sure does make a BIG difference in how polling questions are worded--from past experience in working on politcal campaigns of all types over the years and having done some statistical work back in college----no doubt that the way polling questions are worded makes a big difference in the responses that are received--if a poll taker wants to get a certain sort of response--they word questions to get the favored response--for most polls that aren't slanted and you want to really find out what people are thinking on some subject----you set up a series of questions worded different ways on the same subject to try to get at some sort of good sense of where people are really at on any particular subject.

It is a big area of study all of that--people spend their entiire professional lives working in such areas, many people do their Master's thesis and PhD dissertions on this subject and for politics---consultants live and die in a professional sense on being able to effectively do polling on the one hand that finds out "the truth" in regards the way voters, likely voters and such are leaning towards candidates, issues, etc.--and when trying to persuade people on some issues--- that they can skew the poll to get the results they want to make it seem that some sort of trend is taking place.

In polling--you do have to look at the source of the work--if its from one of the big names like Gallup or the Pew Organization--its gonna be a pretty well done poll and reliable--but if you see polling from advocacy groups, think tanks and orgs lilke that---take them with a grain of salt. The numbers they get on some question might be correct--but they know they set up the way they asked the questions, picked a population and/or--didn't get a statistically large enough and varied group of people who responded--by design--to get the results they sought.

It was funny--my favorite prof who taught stats liked to always say: "there are lies, damn lies and there is statistics!!"

[sammie19]

In the UK it may be legal to be gay/lesbian/bi and serve in the armed forces but it does not mean that they are tollerated....


discuss??????

I understand that for those who are gay or lesbian in the British armed forces things have improved dramatically. Things arent perfect but there hasn't been the appalling backlash by soldiers, sailors and airmen that was once feared. British soldiers in uniform have even participated in gay pride marches and events.

We will never eliminate all prejudice, and there will always be incidents which are nasty and distasteful due to personal intolerance, but rules can and have been put in place to minimise it. Gay couples who enter into civil partnerships qualify for a married quarters like any other married couple, and no gay or lesbian persion can be held back in their career because of their sexuality (at least not officially) because they have the same rights and privileges as any straight serviceman or woman, as well as precisely the same obligations.

[buddy1943]

I was in the military for 24 years and had bi-sexual experiences the entire time,although never with another service member.I started out when I was 19.I always allowed myself to be picked up on some street corner in downtown Norfolk,Virginia.Some times it would take hours and sometimes only a short while till I was picked up.Being young and good looking with a trim body meant that I would always be taken to their house and be given a good fucking.My preferred position was on my back with my legs on my partners shoulders.Mostly I liked that position because I wanted to be dominated and that was the best position to have a penis forced into my very tight ass.It always hurt going in but the pain was exquisite.I never sucked a cock until I was in my late 30's.I am not great at it but practice makes perfect.I still prefer that original position and practice it when ever I can.Married now but when I get the chance I never pass up the opportunity.By the way.I never came close to being caught in the military but if I had been,my career would have came to a swift end.

[justcurious4me]

I don't want to sound like I'm putting my foot in my mouth or pissing anyone off, but talking from recent experience and training within the Air Force, this is the opinion I have.

Yes, wording can be key within surveys, which can and will (in some circumstances) manipulate the results, so I don't lend a lot of credence to them.

I've been on this site for only a couple of weeks, because I need to explore myself and how I feel. But, I still need to be discreet due to specifically this topic. I have told my wife my feelings and she supports me; however, I really cannot act on anything until the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy gets recinded. So, for the mean time, I look to all of you for knowledge and support as I try to keep myself reserved in my feelings. Yes, I am active duty.

The policy concerning gays in the military was written into the Uniform Code of Military Justice well over 100 years ago. Back in those days, there was no such thing as "Bisexual" and they have never really amended it for new terminology. Hell, if you really wanted to get into military law, you could find regulations that state that oral sex is illegal and a couple could only legally have sex in the missionary position. I believe, in legaleze, that the reason that bisexuals aren't mentioned in the expected rescinding of DADT is because the laws never said anything about it in the first place.

The military will look at the individual act and prosecute for the individual act. So, I honestly believe that if they're going to allow gays and lesbians in the military, this will also include bisexuals as well... I believe that is why they have gotten away with this policy for so long without officially dubbing the policy as Discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation, because they are looking at the individual action, not a categorization of individual. Once again... Technicalities...

Where they have identified bisexuals in its own right is through the Homosexual Policy training that all military personnel must complete every year via computer based training on DADT. If they rescind this policy, it will include everyone... Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals.

I have talked to several people, that I supervise, on the topic of DADT, because of several reasons, mainly safety, but it also lets me know who I can trust later to know about me. How do they feel about the policy going away and serving with like-minded patriots and veterans that are gay, lesbian or bisexual? Realistically speaking, there are a lot of people already in the military that are gay, lesbian or bisexual... So, what's the difference in the first place? Sue us for wanting to be open minded individuals!!!

The reason I say safety is because of this... Historically, what happened when they desegregated the military? There were riots, beatings, murders, etc. People acted out because they were afraid of change... Not saying that that is going to happen, but from a historical perspective, best to be cautious.

Me personally, I have a gadget on my computer counting down to the rescinding of this policy... I can't wait... I want to feel free to explore MY sexuality WITHOUT fear of retribution... As a person in a position of leadership, I have to step up and lead by example. I have to know how to separate my personal life to ensure the mission is getting accomplished. Its part of the Air Force Core Values... Integrity, Service before self & Excellence in all we do...

For those out there that do have issues concerning the rescinding of DADT... My love for sex and the partners that I'm with, no matter which gender they may be, will never have a bearing on how I feel and serve for the flag that I love. I will always do my best, strive to be the best in what I do, despite my orientation...

I have to stop... I'm just rambling now... I just get upset when I have to suppress something that I don't want to suppress...