From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:59:39 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <grendel.724191937@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
]In <1992Dec12.065119.15036@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>In article <grendel.724112278@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
]>Furthermore, the "intelligent" soldiers might decide that the gays were
]>a threat to the fighting efficiency of their platoon, and thus a threat
]>to their lives and the lives of their friends, and do something (hazing,
]>harrassment, fragging, for example) to get them out of the platoon.
]
]Sure.  Unity through fear, not trust.  Makes sense.
Hey, I just gave an example. You may not like it, but you weren't supposed
to.
]
]>]>It seems to me that because of that line of reasoning,
]>]>the military is not yet ready to be integrated.  I expect
]>]>that if you were to have full integration and immediately
]>]>have a war, then a significant number of the gays would be
]>]>killed in the above situations.  And, that's not something
]>]>that we want to risk.
]>]
]>]Who's "we"?  The army is a volunteer organization.  If a gay is in the army,
]>]it's because he or she wants to be.  They're willing to risk their lives to
]>]serve their country.
]
]>So what?
]
]What do you mean, so what?  Did you read the post I was responding to?
]"That's not something that we want to risk."  Who's "we"?, I asked.
]What don't you understand?
I don't have the faintest idea why you brought up the issue of gays
willing to risk their lives for their country. What does it have to do
with the issue?

]
]>]>Instead, the gay-rights people should try to integrate
]>]>the rest of society, to the effect that a soldier,
]>]>upin entering the military, wouldn't think twice about
]>]>serving with a gay man.
]>]
]>]Nice idea, and I'm all for it, but unfortunately it's an improbable task.
]>]"Integrating society" isn't something that can be done without an enormous
]>]consensus.  Look at racial integration: how long did it take _that_ to work?
]>]Some would argue (not me) that blacks _still_ aren't fully integrated.
]
]>Oh, I see.... so let's integrate the area where we are most likely to
]>cause death and destruction first, because it is easier. Great logic!
]
]No need for d&d if laws are enforced.

Again, you are completely ignoring the arguments that have been presented.
The death and destruction occurs when unit cohesiveness and trust
are broken up in units involved in combat or working with dangerous
weapons systems.

]>]People already get killed in the military.  That's what war is all about.
]>]When the military is not at war, there's no reason for anyone to get killed.
]
]>I guess you don't know that fewer American soldiers died during the Gulf
]>War than during normal peacetime training, because normal training is
]>quite dangerous? I had a number of friends who died in the military when
]>not at war.
]
]I would have to assume they weren't murdered by their fellow soldiers,
]and that they didn't die because of lack of Unit Cohesiveness.  If this
]assumption is false, that means laws are not enforced in the military; this
]is a problem that needs to be dealt with.  If this assumption is correct,
]that's the kind of risk anyone, straight or otherwise, takes upon entering
]the military.
Once again, you miss the point. You asserted that when the military is not
at war, there's no reason for anyone to get killed. I pointed out that
the military is a dangerous place even when not at war. Your response
about murder of fellow soldiers is just unrelated to anything. Try again.

]>]The military is a good place to start integration because it is a rigidly
]>]controlled environment.  
]
]>It also happens to be one of the most sensitive environments there is
]>to this sort of experiment! I can't think of a place where there are
]>more people uncomfortable with homosexuality than in the military. I can't
]	
]Then isn't this the place that needs the most work to change these attitudes?

No, it is a place that needs to be left alone to do the job required
of it's members without disruption and additional danger. Frankly, I have
yet to be convinced that the attitude of not wanting to sleep or shower
with gays is wrong.

]>think of a place where things which cause strife between individuals
]>could be more destructive. I don't know about you, but I don't want
]>the crew of a ballistic missile submarine screwed up by your experiment!
]
]There are lots of reasons a crew of a sub could be "screwed up".  The
]presence of a gay soldier would have to be among the least likely.  If
You think so? Why do you think it would be "least likely?"

]you're in a life-or-death situation, are you going to do something
]that threatens everyone's life because one of your crewmates is gay?
]Or are you going to concentrate on staying alive and worry about prejudices
]later?

You obviously just don't understand how crew cohesiveness works. If it
is screwed up during non-combat situations, it doesn't miraculously
get better under stress.

]>]This isn't a "social experiment"; it's the implementation of equal rights.  
]
]>Let's examine this. Do I have an equal right to shower and sleep in the
]>same quarters with those whom I find sexually attractive? If not, why
]>do gays?
]	
]This argument has only been advanced about a thousand times in this discussion.
]It leads nowhere.  Gays are not attracted by all men, just as you are not
]attracted by all women.  The purpose of the military is not sex.  People don't
]enter it to get sex.  The fact that a gay soldier would be in intimate
]surroundings with straight soldiers is incidental.  What is far more important
]is that soldiers of any orientation be allowed to serve if they so choose.

(1) Gays don't have to be attracted by all men for this argument to hold
(2) The fact that the military's purpose is not sex is irrelevant.
(3) How do YOU know that gays might not enter it to get sex?
(4) The fact that gay soldiers would be in intimate surroundings with
straight soldiers is hardly incidental.... it is the who issue, as you
must by now realize.
(5) The purpose of the military is not sex, but it is also not a place
to allow soldiers "of any orientation" to be "allowed" anything.... it is
an organization whose purpose is killing people and breaking things, not
"allowing" anyone "to serve if they so choose."

]>Let's examine this a bit farther. You are assuming that gays should have
]>equal rights. From what do you derive this? Does this same logic apply
]>to child molesters or rapists? After all, a lot of them simply have a
]>sexual preference which is against social norms?
]
]John, do you even read this newsgroup, or do you just post?  I find it hard
]to believe you haven't seen this argument advanced and refuted about _ten_
]thousand times.  I can't believe you're actually taking this tired old tack.

And I can't believe that you are once again missing my point! Did I ever
say that child molesters or rapists ARE the same as homosexuals? Hell no...
I am just pointing out that a simple assertion of equal rights clearly
doesn't apply to everyone - in this case.... child molesters and rapists.

]No, child molesters and rapists are not the same as homosexuals.  The fact
]that their sexual practices are against social norms is completely irrelevant.
]Molestation and rape are crimes, because unlike homosexuality, they involve
]the deprivation of rights of one of the parties involved.  Gay sex, for the
]most part, takes place between two consenting adults.  No one gets hurt.
]There's nothing wrong with it.  Nobody suffers any ill effects.  Are you
]telling me you don't see any difference between that and rape?
Geez... try to read what I write!
]
]>Seriously, why should we cause all this disruption to give the "right"
]>to gays to join the military (as if that were a right)?
]
]Because equal rights is what this country is all about.  It is sadly ironic
]that our military, supposedly that organization which is designed to fight
]to preserve the freedoms of this country, does not observe them.

It is ivory tower to the max to apply this sort of logic.
]
]>[BTW, most places _do_ employ gays; the
]>]military is an exception to the rule in our society.  Time to catch up.
]
]>The military is an exception to a lot of rules. For example, most
]>places don't arrest you if you quit because you don't like the working
]>conditions. Most places don't expect you to sleep in foxholes with
]>people shooting at you. Of course the military is different, because,
]>amazingly enough, the military really is a different place. Got it?
]	
]And Disneyland is a different place from CNN, yet people work in both places
]and get paid in both places and take risks in both places.  So what?
So what? Don't you see the difference between Disneyland and the military?

]The military is a job just like anything else; it is organized by the govern-
]ment, but you get paid for working there.  Different jobs have different
]risks, and when you agree to work at a job, you agree to take the risks
]involved with it.  It's reasonable to agree to uncomfortable situations
]like sleeping in foxholes when working for the military, because those
]kinds of situations are to be expected in battle.  But, like any other
]job, equal rights are also to be expected.  There's no reason to make an
]exception for the military because it's run by the government.

No! No! No! The military is NOT a job like anything else. Name ONE job
that is non military that it is against the law to quit! Name ONE job
where the penalty for refusing to obey orders is either criminal sanctions
or instant execution!  I am amazed that you cannot tell the difference!
The  military is the only job I know of that requires one to surrender
basic human rights as a condition of employment, with NO way to change
your mind later.

]
]>I'll ask my quiz while I'm at it.... have YOU ever served in the
]>military?
]
]Nope.  Never will, if I can help it.  Doesn't matter.  I've never worked at
]Cracker Barrel, either, but I still know it's not okay to discriminate against
]gays.
Nice try. Every one of your posts shows a determined ignorance of the 
difference between military life and anything else. Even this last sentence
of yours, comparing Cracker Barrel to the military, shows this arrogant
disregard for the fundamental differences.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11758 alt.politics.clinton:18760