Interesting Fox News Poll

[berkshirescouter]

Regardless of where you stand on the issue the results are interesting. Look at Poll 5.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95753,00.html

[NJCubScouter]

Thanks for this, Its Trail Day, it is indeed interesting and I will have more to say about it later, but for now, as a public service, I'm putting the URL below because it looks like it did not come out "whole" in your post. It may have something to do with the commas, in which case it may not work this time either. I am sure there are some people who know how to put a URL in here by coding it rather than just cutting-and-pasting and hoping it works, but I am not one of them.

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[NJCubScouter]

Well, we learn from our failures as well as our successes. It appears that the first comma "fools" the software that runs this forum into thinking that the URL is finished.

[acco40]

First, "young people are more than three times as likely as older Americans to favor it." That is why I believe, rightly or wrongly, the policy of the BSA will change.

 

Second, question 5 is misleading.

"5. Do you think organizations should screen out gay and lesbian adults from serving in jobs that allow them to be alone with children, such as scout troop leader or teacher?"

 

As an organization, the BSA has no "jobs" that allow adults to be alone with children (unless their own).

[slontwovvy]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html

 

Unrelated, but I thought this was interesting as well.

[NJCubScouter]

Question 5 is:

 

5. Do you think organizations should screen out gay and lesbian adults from serving in jobs that allow them to be alone with children, such as scout troop leader or teacher?

 

All respondents: Yes 34 pct., No 54 pct., Not Sure 12 pct.

 

Just to be fair to the "other side" in this debate (a courtesy that is rarely accorded in the other direction, but anyway), this question is flawed. Acco points out that the BSA does not permit adults to be alone with Scouts. Even more than that, the subject of "alone with children" -- in other words prevention of abuse -- is not the BSA's stated reason for its anti-gay policy. The stated reason involves "values" though as I have stated many times I do not believe that is really the issue, but that is for another thread.

 

On the other subjects in this poll:

 

26 percent favor and 62 percent oppose "gay marriage," but there is no question about what I think should really be the question, which is whether some sort of "marriage-like" status should be established, regardless of the name. Vermont's "civil union" law is a good one and I think it balances the interests of persons in a committed, monogamous relationship seeking the legal and financial benefits and protections of a state-recognized contractual domestic union (which for straight people we call a "marriage") with those who believe the word "marriage" has a special significance that should not be changed. That is what I think society should be discussing, instead everybody (on both sides) is hung up on the word "marriage." For that reason, if I had been called in this poll there would have been one more vote for "not sure" (12 percent.)

 

What is really the most surprising result to me is that 64 percent favor, and 25 percent oppose, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. I suspect this is going to happen anyway over the next few years as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision. But, 64 percent think gays should be able to serve in the military? It seems to me that that reflects a change in the "consensus values" of our society. It is actually the only question in the poll that comes close to asking the core question that we kick around in this forum, which is whether homosexuality is immoral and therefore should subject gays to exclusion. And remember that this is a Fox News poll, and one could argue about whether that network has a "conservative" tilt, but nobody would argue that it is slanted the other way.

 

But how about that? A majority of our society things gays should be able to serve openly in the military. Where, then, does this so-called "value" that homosexuality is immoral come from?

 

 

[evmori]

NJ,

It's not a value. It's a fact! Homosexuality is immoral.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

I struggled with the following statement for quite a awhile, no matter how i try to express it, it comes out quite crude and seemingly unscoutlike, yet I cant explain myself any better. If some of the more talented wordsmiths can fashion a better statement, I would drop this one in its favor;

 

 

I have no problem with gay men and women serving in the Armed Forces, they have as much a right to die for their country as straight men and women.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

It's not a value. It's a fact! Homosexuality is immoral.

 

OK, I didn't want to turn this thread into that. But now that you have...

 

The terminology of "values" is that used by the BSA itself (and by BobWhite, as if there were a difference.) I didn't make it up. But more to the point (and as my son might say, red alert, shields up, polarize the hull plating), here's what I'd like to know:

 

Where did you get this "fact"? Why, and/or how, is homosexuality immoral? And just to make it clear, I understand that your religion teaches you that it is immoral. That is not what I am asking. I mean, how is it immoral from the standpoint of the BSA?

[Rooster7]

First, as far as I'm concerned, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, all true values (morality) come from God.

 

Second, with or without organized religion, I believe God makes those values clear to us. That being said, I think there are many "atheists" who understand that homosexuality is a perversity.

 

Third, whether or not a homosexual have a right to die for their country has never been the reason for banning their presence in the military. The question is, can the U.S. military function well with an infusion of open homosexuals among its ranks?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I love semantical fights, actually I dont think I do, but here we go again, buckle up your helmets and be sure the tray tables are locked in the upright positions. Although as much as I fly, I have never seen a tray table locked in the downright, or downleft position for that matter. Anyway, I digress,

 

So Ed, if its a "fact" that homosexuality is "immoral" does that make the Episcapol Church immoral for having a Homosexual Bishop, does that make all who voted for the Gay bishop immoral? How could so many semmingly rightgeous people be so grievously wrong? Anyway, its just a thought

[OldGreyEagle]

Roster, good question, and I admit that if my straight son someday must risk his life for our country, I will want gay's taking the same risk.

 

Now, as to the question if the US Military can operate with open gays in it. Thats a very good question. I dont know if anyone has the definitive answer to that question, but I can look at history.

 

Blacks were in segregated in the military because the Armed Forces ability to conduct its business with intergrated troops was quesitoned, turns out there is no problem.

 

Blacks were not allowed to be pilots, as they werent supposed to be "Capable" (read smart enough) the Tuskegee airmen proved that wrong

 

Females were banned from many non-combat branches of the service because it was felt their presence would interfere with the military carrying out their functions, turns out the ladies did just fine.

 

Females were banned from Combat operations because it was felt that their prescence would interfere with the military carrying out their functions, The ladies are now doing it.

 

Females were once banned from Naval Ship duty because it was felt that their prescence would disrupt the ship form its duty, they now serve.

 

And as has been recently shown, the US has a pretty good military, even with all these groups that "people" thought would interfere with the military performing its function.

 

Is it possible openly gay people will be the next group assimilated to the Armed Forces and then we will wonder just what the fuss was all about anyway?

 

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

Roster, good question, and I admit that if my straight son someday must risk his life for our country, I will want gay's taking the same risk.

 

Personally, Im not anxious to see gay men put at risk, because my son who happens to be straight might be put at risk. Heres my concern - I dont want my son to be put at a greater risk, because political correctness forced him into a fighting unit that did not functional well. If gays cause disharmony in the military (whether its intentional or not is not relative), then they shouldnt be there.

 

Blacks were in segregated in the military because the Armed Forces ability to conduct its business with intergrated troops was quesitoned, turns out there is no problem.

 

The whole black/homosexual comparison is flawed. First, its a given that being black (or African-American, if thats preferred) is not an act of immorality. I hope everyone can accept that as a GIVEN. The same cannot be said of homosexuality. Secondly, when blacks were integrated into regular units, their behavior was not an issue. Ones race, is a physical characteristic that should not affect how one interacts with another being. By definition, being a homosexual affects how one may interact with one's own gender.

 

Blacks were not allowed to be pilots, as they werent supposed to be "Capable" (read smart enough) the Tuskegee airmen proved that wrong

 

No one is questioning whether or not a homosexual is capable. Again, the question is - how well will they interact with the rest of the military? Based on demographics (and depending on what polling organization you trust), that means they will be part of a military that is about 90 to 98 percent heterosexual.

 

Females were banned from many non-combat branches of the service because it was felt their presence would interfere with the military carrying out their functions, turns out the ladies did just fine.

 

The gender comparison is just as flawed as the race comparison. In regard to homosexuals, we are not talking about physical characteristics, but sexual behavior. However, since you brought up females, I don't agree with your assertions. As a group (let's talk about "the rule", not the exception), their physical capabiliies are not the same as males. Furthermore (call me a sexist - go ahead, I've been called worse), aside from our physical differences, it's apparent that women are not men. Nor would I want to live a society where they were treated like men.

 

Females were banned from Combat operations because it was felt that their prescence would interfere with the military carrying out their functions, The ladies are now doing it.

 

When was the last time you talked to the military personnel who actually live through these experiences? From my conversations with the same, the ladies are NOT doing it. Theyre there, but they are often not appreciated...as in, they're resented. For the most part They dont do the same tasks. And they dont do it as well. Lives are being risked so that some upper level officers and liberal politicians can be appeased.

 

Females were once banned from Naval Ship duty because it was felt that their prescence would disrupt the ship form its duty, they now serve. .

 

Again, youre not talking to the same folks that I have. They are disruptive to the ship. Nevertheless, this is a different argument.

 

And as has been recently shown, the US has a pretty good military, even with all these groups that "people" thought would interfere with the military performing its function.

 

Most career military men, who risk more than a paper cut, resent the social experiments that politicians try to impose on the military. They dont hate women or homosexuals. They simply want to be part of a unit in which they can depend and trust that all of its members will do their job. Furthermore, the fact that the military does well - does not mean it could not do better. Id rather seen a few more boys come home alive, safe, and whole, then be able to thump my chest about how open minded we are as a society.

 

Is it possible openly gay people will be the next group assimilated to the Armed Forces and then we will wonder just what the fuss was all about anyway?

 

The next group Aside from physical traits, what other groups have the Armed Forces assimilated? If homosexuals were assimilated, they would be the first group accepted based on their sexual appetite. Thats a pretty sad criterion for the Arm Forces to adopt. When that day arrives, many will wonder what kind of a society they are protecting? Mom, apple pie, and the American way, just wont have the same ring to it.

 

OGE, Im sure you mean well and I appreciate your civility in debate. You are a true gentleman. Having said this, I vehemently oppose your conclusions about homosexuals and most in particularly their potential role in the military.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Twocubdad]

Your argument contradicts itself, Rooster.

 

You make the point that homosexuals shouldn't be in the military because they disrupt unit cohesion and could put lives at risk. That was precisely the argument against integrating blacks and women into the services. Whites, especially Southern whites, couldn't be expected to serve with blacks. Men and women couldn't serve together because, well we all know what will happen if you put men and women together. As you write, "By definition, being a homosexual affects how one may interact with one's own gender." Well, by definition, being a heterosexual affects how one may interact with the opposite gender.

 

Secondly, you say that gays are different because their actions are immoral while being black or female is simply physical characteristic. At risk of offending those in the service (and I apologize in advance for making a blanket statment) I doubt large numbers of 19-year-old recruits give a whole lot of thought to the morals of the person next to them. On the other hand, I few biggoted individuals may have problems serving next to gays for reasons of their own prejudices, just like they may have a problem serving with blacks, women or various other minorities. But that's their problem and perhaps they should reconsider a career in the armed services.

 

A professional military man may conclude that all these "social experiments," as you call them, negatively impact the fighting ability of a unit. I am certainly in no position to judge that. But our society has collectively made the decision that our military is more than just a fighting force. It educates, trains, provides employment, and yes, even character development for millions of people.

 

If unit cohesion is the number one concern, whether a unit is disrupted by blacks, women, homosexuals, or other minorities shouldn't matter. If they create a problem, ban 'em all. On the other hand, if I'm a pilot on a mission, I don't give a hoot who works on my plane, as long as they do their job well.

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"Females were banned from Combat operations because it was felt that their prescence would interfere with the military carrying out their functions, The ladies are now doing it.

 

"Females were once banned from Naval Ship duty because it was felt that their prescence would disrupt the ship form its duty, they now serve. "

 

All depends on who you listen to as to whether they disrupt anything.