From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:36:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.190253.7333@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.225152.23861@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>>If it is a choice, then it seems like a gay doesn't have sufficient
>>will-power to overcome his sexual urges to go straight, which is the
>>natural sexual choice.  If true, then will he have sufficient will-power to 
>>overcome his fear amidst the horror and destruction of a battle-field and do 
>>his job?  I think not.
>
>Maybe he makes the choice he wishes to make?  Why should he have to pick
>his "second-choice" lifestyle?

From a viewpoint of a hetrosexual 18 year-old male that is put into boot
camp with an open homosexual, he will not view it as a lifestyle choice,
rather as a weakness, of willpower, of manliness.  A weakness that separates a 
homosexual from "manly" status.  Anything that seperates one soldier from the 
rest of the unit (and clearly an open homosexual is automatically seperate) is
disruptive to the unit.  The first thing a recruit finds out in boot camp
is he/she is not an individual anymore, they don't make individual or for
that matter lifestyle choices.  They are given orders and they must follow
those orders, being punished both physically and mentally is they fail.

>>If it is biological, then what other biological deficincies might a gay
>>soldier have?  Deficiencis that may or may not prevent him fulfilling his
>>job.  Do I want to take chance and bet my life on it?  I think not.
>
>Why do you consider it a deficiency?  I consider it a mere characteristic.

I think we can all agree willingly killing a fellow human being is
something most humans find repulsive.  Our society, laws, and religions say
it is wrong to kill a fellow human.  Yet a soldier is trained, equipped and
skilled at doing exactly that.  How?  By basically erasing all previous
mores and replacing them with a military set.  However, if homosexuality is
biological, then it can't be erased.  The homosexual's proclivity towards
members of the same sex is written in stone, especially since no drug could
change such proclivity.  If his desire for members of the same sex cannot
be altered, what else is written in stone and cannot be altered?  His
ability to fight is immediately called into question and an extra burden
added to disprove that assumption.

No soldier honestly knows what he is capable of doing until he enters real
combat.  Many soldiers break, before, during, or after combat, gay,
straight, male, female.  That's not the issue.  My point is that other
soldiers will automatically question a homosexual's ability to perform, and
possibly get them killed.

I don't have any absolute answers, and all of this is just theoretical.
But I ask, is putting gays in the military by the sweep of the pen worth the 
massive disruption it will cause to the finest military this world has ever
seen, in its entire history?  A disruption that could take decades to fix.
I say no, its not worth the cost.  However, homosexuals have always existed
in the military and will continue to do so.  The open acceptance of
homosexuals in the military is inevitable.  Therefore the military would be
wise in developing a long term integration scheme to accept homosexuals
just as general society is doing.  But it won't happen today, and it won't
happen overnight.  And it shouldn't, but someday, it will.

>
>  - Dave Borden
>    borden@m5.harvard.edu


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11706 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10194 alt.politics.clinton:18685 alt.politics.bush:14587 alt.politics.homosexuality:8003