Comments on: Majority of military personnel do not support DADT

By: Richard W. Fitch

Richard W. Fitch — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:11:44 +0000

Here are some interesting comments regarding the AMA resolution to repeal DADT:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=205739268941&id=49288966338&ref=nf

By: Quo

Quo — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:35:22 +0000

There is no basis for changing the policy (at least not for changing it in the direction of greater tolerance) unless most members of the military actively support such a change. If there’s a small minority who support greater tolerance, and a larger number who are undecided, then things should be kept the way they are, or at least not made more tolerant.

That being the case, “neutrality” on such an issue amounts in effect to support for the current situation, even if those who declare themselves neutral can’t see as much.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:00:30 +0000

“The 33% who are neutral should be counted among those who in effect support the policy…”

That’s some of the most laughably blatant spin I’ve ever seen. You are so entertaining, Quo!

By: Burr

Burr — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:29:22 +0000

“In addition, three-quarters of those surveyed said they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians, according to the study.”

Hard to gloss over that.

By: John

John — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:24:51 +0000

Actually I see this one as a wash, not really helpful to either side. Of course it is interesting that while the pro-repeal side has remained essentially steady over the years the “unsure” crowd has grown from 8% to 40% at the expense of the anti-repeal side. Perhaps this is reflective of what I recall from serving: rank-and-file especially in leadership roles are reluctant to add what to them is an unknown factor to consider in carrying out the mission even if a policy may be questionable. Many of those “unsure” may know good servicemembers who are gay but have no idea what a total repeal would add to their plate. Understandable, if difficult to surmount such an obstacle. This is where folks like Donnelly come in to exploint their concerns by generating fear. Oh not just of white parties in the barracks but of the UNKNOWN factor of this to your average grunt, NCO and officer.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:17:58 +0000

Quo,

Your logic is amusing. Are you sure you aren’t a nom de plume for Elaine Donnelly?

“The 33% who are neutral should be counted among those who in effect support the policy”

Except that, well gosh, they chose not to report that they support the policy. So, no, Quo, since they chose not to respond as supporting the policy, they should not be “counted” that way. They should be counted as “neutral”.

But those, like you, who seek justification for discrimination, will “count” anything in the way that will most harm gay people. And you don’t even see what that says about you.

By: Quo

Quo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:48:24 +0000

It seems to me that this survey shows that de facto support for the current policy is rather high. The 33% who are neutral should be counted among those who in effect support the policy, since they appear to be happy enough with the way things are. Certainly, if only 28% oppose it, then there do not appear to be any good grounds for the military to adopt a more tolerant approach.