|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What's In A Name?
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
According to a recent CBS poll Americans are much more strongly in favor of letting "gay men and lesbians" serve in the U.S. military than they are of letting "homosexuals" serve.
In short, 59% of Americans support "homosexuals" serving in the U.S. military but 70% would support "gay men and lesbians" doing so. When asked about "homosexuals" not only serving but serving OPENLY, 44% of Americans approve, as opposed to the 58% who favored "gay men and lesbians" being able to do so.
These statistically significant shifts, well outside the margin of polling error. What's going on here? The consensus so far seems to be that the term "homosexual" is too clinical, whereas "gay men and lesbians" are people you actually know.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Fuck, but that's depressing.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
And no mention of bisexuals? Perhaps they're worried we'll fight for both sides? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is there a literacy test before you can take this poll?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
According to a recent CBS poll Americans are much more strongly in favor of letting "gay men and lesbians" serve in the U.S. military than they are of letting "homosexuals" serve.
In short, 59% of Americans support "homosexuals" serving in the U.S. military but 70% would support "gay men and lesbians" doing so. When asked about "homosexuals" not only serving but serving OPENLY, 44% of Americans approve, as opposed to the 58% who favored "gay men and lesbians" being able to do so.
These statistically significant shifts, well outside the margin of polling error. What's going on here? The consensus so far seems to be that the term "homosexual" is too clinical, whereas "gay men and lesbians" are people you actually know.
Simple. When people see/hear the word 'homosexual', they immedialy think 'SEX'. In their mind's eye, they go from envisioning people with ordinary, well-rounded lives to envisioning two men (possibly two women, but to be honest the stereotypical homosexual is male) going at it relentlessly, and doing nothing else.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
This reminds me of a programme I saw a few years ago (I have no memory of what it was, or why I was watching it) which sent a man with a camera out onto the streets of America, to ask members of the public whether they would approve of a heterosexual president. They then played a long reel of various morons who'd been asked the question going off on one about evil perversions, and how there would be a heterosexual president over their dead body.
Not scientific or informative, but it was quite funny at the time.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Simple. When people see/hear the word 'homosexual', they immedialy think 'SEX'. In their mind's eye, they go from envisioning people with ordinary, well-rounded lives to envisioning two men (possibly two women, but to be honest the stereotypical homosexual is male) going at it relentlessly, and doing nothing else.
I would conjecture that it is the word “men” in “gay men” that makes a difference. It has, obviously, solidly masculine nuances. “Homosexual” on the other hand, may well carry associations of effeminacy, campness, and so on.
(Do I need to say that I do not, personally, assume that homosexuals are effeminate? I hope not, but I will anyway.)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
over 20 years ago a metastudy of opinion polls (Tom Smith (1987) "That Which We Call Welfare by Any Other Name Would Smell Sweeter - an Analysis of the Impact of Question Wording on Response Patterns", The Public Opinion Quarterly, v51.1) found that about 61% of Americans wanted to government to spend more money on helping the poor, over 40% wanted them to spend money on helping the unemployed, but only about 26% wanted to spend more money on welfare.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Simple. When people see/hear the word 'homosexual', they immedialy think 'SEX'. In their mind's eye, they go from envisioning people with ordinary, well-rounded lives to envisioning two men (possibly two women, but to be honest the stereotypical homosexual is male) going at it relentlessly, and doing nothing else.
I would conjecture that it is the word “men” in “gay men” that makes a difference. It has, obviously, solidly masculine nuances. “Homosexual” on the other hand, may well carry associations of effeminacy, campness, and so on.
(Do I need to say that I do not, personally, assume that homosexuals are effeminate? I hope not, but I will anyway.)
I agree that's also a possible factor. I hadn't actually picked up on the fact that it said 'gay men' rather than just 'gays'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
I'm surely fighting a losing battle here (or more like one lost before I was born), but I'm very uncomfortable using the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals. It was once a fine word, one that filled a specific hole in the English Language. Now it's hard for us to sing "Deck the halls" with a straight (no pun intended) face.
Forget about Leviticus and Romans. They stole my word and I want it back!
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Yeah, there was some song we sung in gradeschool about a "gay senorita" -- Cielito Lindo?
People have twisted "hot" and "awesome" into something unrecognizable, too. Bleeegh.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Missed the edit --
I prefer Ignatius J. Reilly's plan for homosexuals in the military. He proposed that all the world's armies be made up only of campy gay men. He figured they'd be so busy planning fabulous fancy-dress balls in order to meet those fascinating foreign soldiers, and designing the latest in avant garde chic military dress uniforms, there'd be no time for war. The guns and bombs would all rust.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
This reminds me of a programme I saw a few years ago (I have no memory of what it was, or why I was watching it) which sent a man with a camera out onto the streets of America, to ask members of the public whether they would approve of a heterosexual president. They then played a long reel of various morons who'd been asked the question going off on one about evil perversions, and how there would be a heterosexual president over their dead body.
Not scientific or informative, but it was quite funny at the time.
The same could just as easily happen over on this side. Years ago - before the fall of the Berlin Wall - I used to work for a Red Cross-sponsored volunteer bureau called the 'Community Network'. The simple title-bearing banner we displayed on our info stall at local fairs would frequently attract people whose opening conversational gambit was 'We don't want any of that here. Get back to bloody Russia'.
[ 08. March 2010, 08:14: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Missed the edit --
I prefer Ignatius J. Reilly's plan for homosexuals in the military. He proposed that all the world's armies be made up only of campy gay men. He figured they'd be so busy planning fabulous fancy-dress balls in order to meet those fascinating foreign soldiers, and designing the latest in avant garde chic military dress uniforms, there'd be no time for war. The guns and bombs would all rust.
Stereotype much?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petros
Shipmate
# 2820
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Stereotype much?
Yes but he did say camp gay men. Butch gay men wouldn't be any good at all
--------------------
Just because you don't know what's going on doesn't necessarily mean that someone else does.
Posts: 99 | From: Northamptonshire, UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Maybe we should get all the ladies who aren't allowed to be Gideons to start putting dictionaries in American hotel rooms.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I'm surely fighting a losing battle here (or more like one lost before I was born), but I'm very uncomfortable using the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals. It was once a fine word, one that filled a specific hole in the English Language. Now it's hard for us to sing "Deck the halls" with a straight (no pun intended) face.
Forget about Leviticus and Romans. They stole my word and I want it back!
Both Kids in the Hall and Fry & Laurie do a sketch about this.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
