CNN poll: 69% support letting gays serve openly in military — including 62% of Republicans

posted at 9:37 pm on February 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

There’s been a majority in favor of it since 1998 but the split at the time was 52/39. Now it’s 69/27, with Republicans and indies both above 60 percent. A fitting exclamation point to a week that saw conservatives hold the gay-friendliest CPAC evah.

Support for allowing gays in the military is much higher among Democrats than Republicans, but the policy wins support from a majority of Republicans as well. More than eight in ten Democrats say that gays should be allowed to serve; 62 of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents agree with that view.

The poll’s release follows Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut announcement Monday that he would be a sponsor of legislation next week to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which has been in place since 1993…

In 1994, a majority of Americans thought homosexual relationships were morally wrong; only 41 percent believed that homosexuality was not a moral issue. Now, for the first time since polls began asking this question in the 1970s, half the public thinks that homosexuality is not a moral issue.

The split on that last point is 48/50 between is/isn’t, but that trend will likely skew towards the latter over the next few years too. (Interesting footnote: In 1998, it was 48/45, so the “is” faction is holding steady thus far.) For all the blather about liberal realignment after The One was elected, I think gay issues is one area where it might actually happen — ironically because Obama’s economic agenda is so alarming to conservatives that it’s forced them to reprioritize fiscal responsibility as their organizing principle. Abortion will remain a fault line eternally because it’s a matter of life and death, but the libertarian impulse inside the GOP will continue to make inroads vis-a-vis gays. There’s nothing like aggressive statism to concentrate the mind on what’s most important.

Here’s Petraeus on Meet the Press this Sunday playing coy about his own opinion of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He does say he supports the moves taken by Gates and Mullen but seems to want to go slow and let the Pentagon carry out a full review. (See this NYT story for a counterargument.) Given the numbers in CNN’s poll, I’m not sure how politically viable the review will be if it concludes we should stick with the policy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

Hellfire and Brimstone to rain from the heaven’s in a Godly Orgy of Wrathful Destruction to begin in 5 seconds according to some.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 9:38 PM

The new orange peel lover forum is now open.

abobo on February 22, 2010 at 9:39 PM

I don’t much care about public opinion on this issue. It is the military’s opinion that ultimately counts. Specifically, uncoerced military opinion.

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Has anyone polled the military?

Ronnie on February 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM

I wouldn’t mock God

Bullhead on February 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM

This should be entertaining…

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM

half the public thinks that homosexuality is not a moral issue.

Half of the public is incapable of thought. Witness the current admin.

OldEnglish on February 22, 2010 at 9:41 PM

I have no problem with gays serving in the military. Particularly if they’re front-line infantry.

Darth Executor on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

I can make a LOT better argument for gays in the military than I can for allowing muslims in.

wildcat84 on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

How about we ask the ones serving in the armed forces what they think, mmmkay?

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

In the Navy!!

darclon on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Obvi.

DADT — and its inevitable repeal — is just political theatre, though. It’s to distract from economic realities and try to tap the dry keg of ravenous partisanship.

The repeal is going to happen. The present timing of it? Political grandstanding on the part of the Democrats.

That’s why I don’t care much for this conversation NOW.

lansing quaker on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Has anyone polled the military?

Ronnie on February 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Yes.

BadgerHawk on February 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM

62% of Republicans Leftists believe Islamic Extremists should be paid to “serve” in the military.

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM

True dat.

ncborn on February 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Who cares? Gays serve already. Let me serve without fear of having to hide who they are. Move on.

taney71 on February 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

You should’ve posted a picture of a hotdog. I’m sure some folks will choke on this news. :-D

SouthernGent on February 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

How will boot camp work exactly?

Bishop on February 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

People are just freaking out about different things these days. Like healthcare. Gays in the military don’t look so bad after imagining Obama as your doctor.

boomer on February 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Given the numbers in CNN’s poll, I’m not sure how politically viable the review will be if it concludes we should stick with the policy.

You know it’d be awesome if political considerations never entered into how to run the military. Sadly that is not the world we live in.

And who serving in the military is really that upset about this? Maybe I’m misinformed but I thought sex was heavily discouraged so why should anyone’s orientation enter into the equation? Heterosexuals in the military don’t go around displaying their hetero-ness so why should homosexuals go around displaying their homo-ness?

Kronos on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Sounds good. Less paperwork for me and less tiptoeing around the issue.

Squid Shark on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Darth Executor on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

That seems… inappropriate.

BadgerHawk on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I can make a LOT better argument for gays in the military than I can for allowing muslims in.

wildcat84 on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Amen!

milwife88 on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

By the way, I might agree with Allahpundit on this issue, but he is still a commie hippie loving a-sclown for his hatred of Palin.

taney71 on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

You should’ve posted a picture of a hotdog. I’m sure some folks will choke on this news. :-D

SouthernGent on February 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Choking on wieners, *snort*

thomasaur on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

BadgerHawk on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

If Colbert can joke about it then so can I.

Darth Executor on February 22, 2010 at 9:47 PM

As I have posted, Goldwater was Ok with them.

A psychologist I know claims to have reports showing it as a pathology which is frequently the result of abuse. And that the folks have related difficulties which could make them a real problem in some areas. But if we tossed all the black IQ stuff, ( And I think we have.) why not give them equality, also?

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2010 at 9:47 PM

That seems… inappropriate.

BadgerHawk on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

If he had wished they served in rear operations, that would have been inappropriate.

darclon on February 22, 2010 at 9:47 PM

A fitting exclamation point to a week that saw conservatives hold the gay-friendliest CPAC evah.

Yeah, between them and the John Birch Society. That’s a future of conservatism we want, eh?

half the public thinks that homosexuality is not a moral issue.

Half the public still approves of Barack Obama. Half the public wouldn’t know the Pacific Ocean from Euro Pacific.

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Does that mean Taps will have to share a stage with Broadway show tunes?

David2.0 on February 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM

How about they just decorate their closets and stay there?

pugwriter on February 22, 2010 at 9:49 PM

I agree that DADT should be repealed and that a policy of open service should replace it. I will withhold my support until I am satisfied that the current regime of Military Social Actions protocols (these address sexual harassment and discrimination) will be equally enforced on those homosexual members who make undesired overtures. If that guarantee is made explicit, then I am all for it.

instugator on February 22, 2010 at 9:49 PM

And who serving in the military is really that upset about this? Maybe I’m misinformed but I thought sex was heavily discouraged so why should anyone’s orientation enter into the equation? Heterosexuals in the military don’t go around displaying their hetero-ness so why should homosexuals go around displaying their homo-ness?

Kronos on February 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I agree. I hardly think gay guys will be busy playing grab-ass when looking for IEDs

HawaiiLwyr on February 22, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Why do civilians even have a voice in military operations as it pertains to fitness for duty???

ndanielson on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Has anyone polled the military?

Ronnie on February 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Yes.

BadgerHawk on February 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Interesting article. Seems a little biased though.

From the link:

In the most comprehensive survey yet on service members’ attitudes about gays in the military, more than 3,000 Military Times readers contacted randomly by e-mail and through fliers placed in random newsstand copies late last fall offer a clear glimpse about attitudes and experiences in today’s military.

Readers of the MT, however, does not mean the military. Are there any polls of active duty members on this issue?

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Next up, gays getting allowance for a “dependent”–follow that with marriage at base/post chapels—follow that with–”gays can marry in the military, why not in Utah?”

slippery slopes.

ted c on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

What about the transsexuals? Surely they deserve to serve openly too, and I can’t imagine that good military discipline would be hurt by seeing a male general marching around in a skirt and pumps.

Bishop on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

For all the blather about liberal realignment after The One was elected, I think gay issues is one area where it might actually happen — ironically because Obama’s economic agenda is so alarming to conservatives that it’s forced them to reprioritize fiscal responsibility as their organizing principle. Abortion will remain a fault line eternally because it’s a matter of life and death, but the libertarian impulse inside the GOP will continue to make inroads vis-a-vis gays. There’s nothing like aggressive statism to concentrate the mind on what’s most important.

Unless of course, ya gotta blow money to get re-elected, like Scott Brown. Because you all KNEW he had to lie on that one!

Your lies couldn’t get McCain over the hump and they’re not going to work in 2012 either.

Chris_Balsz on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

These uniforms are so campy…!

Seven Percent Solution on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Another type of pornography to add to the base magazine rack.

PrezHussein on February 22, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Next up, gays getting allowance for a “dependent”–follow that with marriage at base/post chapels—follow that with–”gays can marry in the military, why not in Utah?”

slippery slopes.

ted c on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

The progressive agenda in drag.

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Less than 1/3 of 1% of the population serves. Over a year ago, the Army Times (owned by Knight Ridder, and is no way endorsed by the Army) had a poll that asked if allowing openly gay soldiers to serve would be a deal breaker when it came to reenlistment.

23% said it would have somewhat of an effect towards not reenlisting and 10% said it would would be a deal breaker. So, over a 4 year period the yahoos that support this would be looking at a loss of about 150,000 soldiers. Good thing the Army isn’t busy doing anything at the moment.

So, I ask this of the supporters. How many of you will come rushing in to fill the breach?

Beuller…….

Beuller…..

Yeah, that is what I thought.

Blarg the Destroyer on February 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Next up, gays getting allowance for a “dependent”–follow that with marriage at base/post chapels—follow that with–”gays can marry in the military, why not in Utah?”

slippery slopes.

ted c on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Well, of course. Just like the current health care proposals are, as admitted by Democrats, trojan horses for single-payer. Progressives love trojan horse plans.

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

If the military is effective as is, leave the sexual social engineering to the civilian world.

No one is forced to serve in the military.

No one is forced to obey the military’s rules.

It’s an all-volunteer organization.

You don’t like the rules, stay home.

You are supposed to be willing to subsume your own ego and individualistic will in order serve in the common defense of the nation, not play legalistic social games which will only undermine its miltary with needless sexual conflicts, lawsuits, new regs, new complains, ad nauseam.

If it is effectively stopping our enemies, as is, leave it alone.

profitsbeard on February 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

And has anyone asked the majority of the military members? The military is not a social experiment.

Big John on February 22, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Some conservatives keep saying things like “We need to be Americans first!”. Well, here’s their chance. Keeping them out of the military isn’t going to make them straight, they will still be gay. If they want to serve their country I guess let them. I never thought I’d type that but, my nerves are growing thin with some things and this just isn’t as important as it used to be to me. It doesn’t mean I think practicing that lifestyle is ok I’m just getting tired of fighting that fight when I know it isn’t going to change how they live.

boomer on February 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

So, I ask this of the supporters. How many of you will come rushing in to fill the breach?

Blarg the Destroyer on February 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

I’m sure a large percentage of the gay community will simply go running to sign up to replace those soldiers. Right after pigs fly and it snows in hell.

So there will be a shortage of troops in the middle of two wars. But we’ll be totally cool in the social experimentation area, so that’s awesome.

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 9:57 PM

The military is not a social experiment.

Big John on February 22, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Someone should let the military bureaucrats know…

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2010 at 9:57 PM

lansing quaker on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

I agree. Discussing this issue now seems like more Kabuki. Obama is trying his best to appease a Democrat constituency that he has thus far shunned.

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 9:57 PM

What about the transsexuals? Surely they deserve to serve openly too, and I can’t imagine that good military discipline would be hurt by seeing a male general marching around in a skirt and pumps.

Bishop on February 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Oh, give me a break.

That’s akin to saying some weeaboo emo (google it) is going to join the military and get to keep their facade. Much less a filthy, unwashed hipster. A person with a specific stylistic choice is incredibly unlikely to want to serve.

This isn’t about “dress code” — it’s about service. To wit: you do not deny a baptism to someone who strives to attain — and proves they are worthy of — the sacrament because they don’t “fit ‘the’ look”; likewise, you do not deny service to those who dedicate themselves to service because they do not fit some nebulous framework or guideline.

“Pumps” or transvestism in the military is a non sequitur. It’s cheap and transparent. The issue is allowing self-identified gays and lesbians being able to serve because they want to. Those that don’t want to serve will quit, or not even register. That’s how it is.

Any argument to the contrary is absolutely ridiculous.

lansing quaker on February 22, 2010 at 9:58 PM

I have no problem with gays serving in the military. Particularly if they’re front-line infantry.

Darth Executor on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

That’s really nice…

cripes.

JetBoy on February 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Hellfire and Brimstone to rain from the heaven’s in a Godly Orgy of Wrathful Destruction to begin in 5 seconds according to some.Holger on February 22, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Thank Buddha that Sodom and Gomorrah is just a scary fairy tail.

BryanS on February 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Why don’t we just allow pederasty as well? The ancient Spartans practiced it and I heard they had a pretty good military…

I mean the movie 300 has a 60% favorable rating on Rotten Tomatoes so it must be a good idea right?

darclon on February 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

The military is not a social experiment.

Big John on February 22, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Which explains why Harry S. Truman issued EO 9981 in 1948.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Ok, what about necrophiliacs?

OldEnglish on February 22, 2010 at 10:00 PM

It doesn’t mean I think practicing that lifestyle is ok I’m just getting tired of fighting that fight when I know it isn’t going to change how they live.

boomer on February 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Just as they want it. Victory isn’t defined by destroying an opponent, it is defined by destroying an opponent’s will to fight.

pugwriter on February 22, 2010 at 10:00 PM

profitsbeard on February 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Well said, saves me from saying anything.

Hog Wild on February 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM

If the whole world were gay, it would cease to exist in one generation.

So extending special rights to gays is tantamount to supporting extinction.

Might as well let Iran have nukes if that is the case.

David2.0 on February 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM

So,after Obama has thrown the Gay Rights Groups under
da bus,just like Bill Clinton did twice,

why should the Gay Community trust the Obama Administration,
or is this more of a way to attack the US Military,of which
El Code Pinko`s can only dream!!

canopfor on February 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM

I vote no. I’m former Infantry and it’s a bad idea.

Has anybody, and I mean anybody, in the democrat party ever read the Bible other than to quote it as hate speech?

Mojave Mark on February 22, 2010 at 10:02 PM

The military is not a social experiment.

Big John on February 22, 2010 at 9:55 PM

This.

redwhiteblue on February 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM

The military is not a social experiment.

Big John on February 22, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Which also explains the 20th Massachusetts and later Buffalo Soldiers, WAC and other ‘social experiments’.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I’m not suprised. Only a small percentage of the population serves in the military. Homosexuality is a far less personal issue when you talk about it in the context of military service. When gay marriage comes up thugh much more personal…

This seems to be the next front in the acceptance war. I wouldn’t start celebrating just yet. If the Democrats had the votes they would have passed it already, it still a Republic.

Theworldisnotenough on February 22, 2010 at 10:04 PM

canopfor on February 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Shhhhhh!

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 10:04 PM

If the whole world were gay, it would cease to exist in one generation.

So extending special rights to gays is tantamount to supporting extinction.

David2.0 on February 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM

No, extending special rights to gays is at most tantamount to supporting extinction of genetic information that would be passed down by those gays that don’t choose to have their own children with a surrogate or what have you.

Now, extending special rights just to make someone feel warm and fuzzy is wrong – extinction or not.

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Which also explains the 20th Massachusetts and later Buffalo Soldiers, WAC and other ’social experiments’.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 10:04 PM

So you are cool with gays only being allowed to cook and clean? Separate training bases? Gay only units? Please stop insulting black people by equating it to homosexuality.

Theworldisnotenough on February 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Off Topic:

Rep. Michele Bachman just kicked serious ass, live on the House floor, on C-SPAN, denouncing the new O-Care bill.

Doorgunner on February 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM

I served in the Navy, on submarines. I cant imagine many would really want this. Especially with sleep quarters being the way it is. What are they going to do, use one of the smaller berthing areas just for the gay people? And I sure wouldnt want to shower and what not openly around gay men.

How do they go about separating them berthing wise and shower wise? They separate men/women, so now wouldnt we have to separate the same gender if one openly says he’s gay?

bucsox79 on February 22, 2010 at 10:07 PM

You are supposed to be willing to subsume your own ego and individualistic will in order serve in the common defense of the nation, not play legalistic social games which will only undermine its miltary with needless sexual conflicts, lawsuits, new regs, new complains, ad nauseam.

If it is effectively stopping our enemies, as is, leave it alone.

profitsbeard on February 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

profitsbeard: Well said:)

canopfor on February 22, 2010 at 10:07 PM

This seems to be the next front in the acceptance war. I wouldn’t start celebrating just yet. If the Democrats had the votes they would have passed it already, it still a Republic.

Theworldisnotenough on February 22, 2010 at 10:04 PM

The Democrats could have passed it since 2006. They don’t because the chronic victimization and Ghetto/Castro-ization rhetoric toward gays earns them votes and donations, from gay groups as well as “concerned allies.”

Despite my personal feelings that DADT should be repealed (and it will be eventually), I can call a theatrical trick — like this sudden concern over DADT is — for what it is.

lansing quaker on February 22, 2010 at 10:07 PM

It is the military’s opinion that ultimately counts. Specifically, uncoerced military opinion.

KickandSwimMom on February 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM

I agree. Let the people who will be directly affected by the policy make the final decision! That is a basic principle of direct democracy.

atheling on February 22, 2010 at 10:07 PM

pugwriter on February 22, 2010 at 10:00 PM

I’m just concentrating on other areas. I don’t think that there is going to be a huge rush for gays to joing anyway. They will still have to live up to certain standards and if they can’t then they get discharged. It’s like telling a child he can’t have something. He’ll only want it worse. Give it to him and he quickly loses interest. I’m willing to bet when it happens, and it eventually will, the thrill will quickly be gone. Hey, it’s the same arguement pot smoking hippies use for the legalization of reefer right?

boomer on February 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Which explains why Harry S. Truman issued EO 9981 in 1948.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

First, “without regard to race, color, religion or national origin”. No mention of people who are sexually attracted to one another being housed together.

Second, Truman was also of the generation where the military was willing to wipe out cities to end a war. Different levels of acceptability to defeat the enemy.

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM

I refuse to use the euphemism “gay.” It is homosexual behavior.

pugwriter on February 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Excuse me, 54th Massachusetts. 20th MA was a bunch of Harvard grads.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM

I will say this, though: If they open the doors to an open gay military, fewer straight men will enlist.

Unintended consequences. Isn’t that libtard-type myopia?

atheling on February 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM

A person with a specific stylistic choice is incredibly unlikely to want to serve…
This isn’t about “dress code” — it’s about service. ..
Any argument to the contrary is absolutely ridiculous.
lansing quaker on February 22, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Do your own research before flying off the handle. By “skirt and pumps” I was referring to the full-dress uniforms that female military members wear in every branch of service.

You can say it’s unlikely all you want, but if so much as one transsexual decides they want to serve, the issue then becomes very likely. So what’s the solution, kick a guy out even though he may be a renowned strategist or master sniper just because he likes to wear women’s clothing?

And if you want to be more topical, how are boot camps to be arranged, special “gay” barracks or are straights and gays to train together with everything that entails?

Bishop on February 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Which also explains the 20th Massachusetts and later Buffalo Soldiers, WAC and other ’social experiments’.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Ah, so we should have separate all-gay units, just like the Buffalo Soldiers were an all-black unit. Gotcha.

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 10:10 PM

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 10:10 PM

The 69th Airborne Division…

….geronimo…?

ted c on February 22, 2010 at 10:11 PM

To wit: you do not deny a baptism to someone who strives to attain — and proves they are worthy of — the sacrament because they don’t “fit ‘the’ look”; likewise, you do not deny service to those who dedicate themselves to service because they do not fit some nebulous framework or guideline.

False. Baptism is of Christ and He set the rules, that is what elevates the sacraments; military service is of men and the rules are man-made.

Chris_Balsz on February 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Gays can already serve, but this line about gays serving openly in the military as comparable to the civil rights movement? REAAALLLLLYYYYY??????
How will the military keep the no sex between heterosexuals consistent and enforceable with gays in the military? On which side of the barracks should they reside, gay men on the female side?
There is other bigotry involved, like for those who have a profile that keeps them from deployment. Or others who hide at a training post so that they become low on the priority list for deployment to combat theaters. Or for those who take advantage of other servicemembers while inebriated. What of the bigotry towards those who can’t keep a marriage partner, say 3 wives by the time they are 26 years of age. Those who get the AIDS/HIV virus become non deployable. So these live and let live types don’t mind allowing openly gay people serve and allowing the most dangerous lifestyle, multiple partners, that would lead to nondeployable status due to HIV- that most heinous and accursed creature that wears a uniform while their straight battle buddies, go to combat. HIV testing would have to go to monthly testing instead of the current once in five years.
That in the military, is termed with the euphemism as blue falcons.
A more serious study shows that the highest percentage of military recruits comes from the South and that would lead to southerners not joining and current servicemembers leaving, I would ASAP, so we placate the 4%? of the population and drive away 20%?of the population who would otherwise serve who would be sickened by living with those with no sign fearing God or man, a truly degenerate creature.

mdetlh on February 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Blarg the Destroyer on February 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM

With the way unemployment is, no one is going to quit their job over this.

Speedwagon82 on February 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Ah, so we should have separate all-gay units, just like the Buffalo Soldiers were an all-black unit. Gotcha.

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Even though the military shouldn’t be used as a social experiment, Holger has demonstrated that it has – segregation or not.

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2010 at 10:13 PM

I don’t really care what the general public thinks about this issue, less than 1% of the population serve in the military. What I do care about is what the people that are actually fighting and dieing for us think about gays in the military. To me they are all that matter.

free on February 22, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Ah, so we should have separate all-gay units, just like the Buffalo Soldiers were an all-black unit. Gotcha.

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Maybe that’s how they start the process–not sure how other countries deal with the issue. Israel seems not to have disintegrated since their inclusion.

BryanS on February 22, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Wonder if White soldiers were okay with de-segregation in the Army?

And if that was good enough reason, not to do it!

This is not an issue for vast majority of Americans except for the dwindling number of social cons.

rightistliberal on February 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Um, no. I am saying the Military has been a guinea pig before. In all cases, this nation has never tried that before.

The Tuskegee Airmen are another prime example. People said they wouldn’t be able to fly, that G-Forces would make them pass out, they didn’t have the intelligence, the reactions or the aptitude to do so. The Tuskegee Airmen went on to have a stellar combat record and produced a few aces IIRC.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM

You can say it’s unlikely all you want, but if so much as one transsexual decides they want to serve, the issue then becomes very likely. So what’s the solution, kick a guy out even though he may be a renowned strategist or master sniper just because he likes to wear women’s clothing?

And if you want to be more topical, how are boot camps to be arranged, special “gay” barracks or are straights and gays to train together with everything that entails?

Bishop on February 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM

You think some ghetto crackhead hasn’t tried to enlist, enlisted, and then whined with righteous indignation — with The Race Card in proper tow — because of their discharge? Or their rejection?

As the old adage goes, one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch. You’re talking in the world of the hypothetical and not existing within the world of reality.

Saying “I’m gay” is different from “I won’t wear this uniform because I’m allergic to camo!” or “I need my heels, baby!” You trying to draw a positive correlation between the two is absolutely abhorrent and — quite frankly — ridiculous.

And from this gay perspective, your perspective on gay/straight combined sleeping situations makes me laugh. Oh, if only you knew. Grab a martini sometime?

lansing quaker on February 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Speedwagon82 on February 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM

The poll was taken when the economy was loosing 750k jobs a month. If it ever rebounds and we have a growing economy; using your logic more will get out because of it.

Thinking, you should look into it sometime.

Blarg the Destroyer on February 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM

I can make a LOT better argument for gays in the military than I can for allowing muslims in.

wildcat84 on February 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Well, maybe no muslims will want to serve if gays serve openly, lol.

atheling on February 22, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Um, no. I am saying the Military has been a guinea pig before. In all cases, this nation has never tried that before.

The Tuskegee Airmen are another prime example. People said they wouldn’t be able to fly, that G-Forces would make them pass out, they didn’t have the intelligence, the reactions or the aptitude to do so. The Tuskegee Airmen went on to have a stellar combat record and produced a few aces IIRC.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM

First, I reject the argument that because something’s happened in the past means it’s okey dokey to happen in the future.

Second, I see a bit of a difference between people of different colors sleeping in the same quarters and people potentially sexually attracted to one another sleeping in the same quarters.

amerpundit on February 22, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Well, maybe no muslims will want to serve if gays serve openly, lol.

atheling on February 22, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Wrap the gays in pork and throw them in the military!!! I like it! ;-)

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Nooo! Not another DADT thread!!!

Rightwingguy on February 22, 2010 at 10:18 PM

As all the ballot initiatives concerning gay marriage have shown, the msm polls concerning gay issues are fraudulent.

Buddahpundit on February 22, 2010 at 10:19 PM

I will say this, though: If they open the doors to an open gay military, fewer straight men will enlist.

Unintended consequences. Isn’t that libtard-type myopia?

atheling on February 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Yes.

B.O.L.O. for a media-manufactured gay hero who, while listening to a Michael Bolton CD and sewing an AIDS quilt, found the fortitude to mow down an enemy battalion with tears in his eyes.

First Bronze Star ever awarded by the Joint Chiefs Of Staff!

David2.0 on February 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM

69% you say?

Hmmm. Gotta be a joke in there somewhere…

thomashton on February 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Why don’t we just allow pederasty as well?

darclon on February 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Ok, what about necrophiliacs?

OldEnglish on February 22, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Both good questions. If I could add to that: What about dumba$$e$?

Darclon and OldEnglish, as members of the aforementioned group, do you want to serve openly?

SCBradley on February 22, 2010 at 10:21 PM

69% you say?

Hmmm. Gotta be a joke in there somewhere…

thomashton on February 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM

LOL!!!

I didn’t even catch that. ;)

lansing quaker on February 22, 2010 at 10:22 PM

How will the military keep the no sex between heterosexuals consistent and enforceable with gays in the military?
mdetlh on February 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM

DO you mean straight guys and girls or straight guys?

In either case, sexual relations between service members are very heavily regulated.

I’m sure straight guys can refrain from having sex with each other irregardless.

Rightwingguy on February 22, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6