From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:14:32 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec14.052336.14122@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>This is a post describing the rationale for NOT having homosexuals
>serve in parts of the armed forces.

Which parts?

>If we consider an aircraft carrier, with 4,000+ plus men on it, it
>would be folly to introduce women on the same exact basis as men.
>That is, they sleep in the same bunks, they shower in the same shower
>and the same time, and so on.
>
>Sailors ARE a horny bunch. Being at sea for months at a time does nothing
>for it -- witness the cluster of prostitution (and bars etc.) around
>naval ports.

Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
acts.

>Introduction of women into parts of the military have had some distressing
>problems. Even with seperate facilities (sleeping, bathrooms, etc.), the
>petty-power mindset of many men in the military led to some rather
>nasty incidents of sexual harassment. Draconian rules have eased the problem
>somewhat.

And yet women are still allowed to serve.

>However, the few women on naval ships have had the worst problems. Unlike
>a land base, where a man can go offbase and get laid, or drunk, or gamble,
>a ship is where you are stuck at. The few women on ships, generally
>civilian contractors working on systems (a carrier typically has 400+
>people onboard that are civilian contractors), have had such problems
>on an ongoing basis. In some cases, marine guards have been assigned to
>escort women on the ships to prevent harassment.

It's good they've gotten the extra protection they deserve. But just how
are you constructing your argument that similar action is not justified or
feasible with gay men and lesbians?

>And are not homosexuals men?

Ask yourself that question. You've taken to referring to me and others from
time to time as "guy", and "he/she/undecided".

>Do they not seek and desire sex with their
>preferred type of partner just the same as hetereosexual men?

Obviously. Straight men are required to abide by rules of sexual conduct
in the armed services. Gay men and lesbians are being precluded because
of (1) the assumption that they cannot abide by the same rules, and (2)
straight men cannot be reeducated to be more tolerant.

>It obviously would be foolhardy in the extreme to have women sharing the
>showers (at the same time etc.) on board a military ship, for example.

>Unless of course, one wishes to impart near-saintly restraint and vastly
>different behaviour to homosexuals. Which, is likely NOT the case at all.

Strange. I belong to a gym, which because of its location in a largely
gay area of Boston, is largely patronized by gay men. I've NEVER seen any
fooling around going on in the showers.

And I've belonged to several gyms in the last few years. Oddly, the "non-gay"
ones have exhibited members with lesser control of their groins. I'll never
forget the day at one of my former gyms when I walked into a humiliation scene
where two men (presumably straight---they had girlfriends to my knowledge)
had forced down another gym member who they perceived to be gay, and forced
him to give a blow job to a third man, as an act of humiliation. Needless to
say, their memberships were revoked.

But you can't bring yourself to admit that the issue is CONDUCT, not
orientation, now can you?

>A report on hetereosexual AIDS transmission in a part of Florida from
>the Center for Disease Control noted the widespread (19%!!!!!!) incidence
>of the disease, despite the fact that "over 47% of those infected have
>similar numbers of lifetime sexual partners for their age group (under 30)
>of 3-6 for women, and 4-9 for men". And I quoted that.

Were they telling the truth? This result seems very suspect to me, seeing
that ones chances of contracting HIV go up roughly proportionately with the
number of ones sexual partners.

>Contrast this to some comments on the "restraint" of some homosexuals,
>that "only" have 20 different partners a YEAR!

Again...maybe straight people are being less honest about their sexual
escapades?

>In short, it would be stupid and very injurious to morale to place
>homosexuals among the close quarters of a naval crew. They are no more likely,
>indeed less so, to "restrain" themselves than say, a small number of
>men placed among an almost all female crew, and shwoering and bunking
>together.

Right. No more likely to engage in abusive conduct than the straight men
are. Perhaps LESS likely given that only 1 incidence of non-consensual
homosexual conduct was reported in a case load of over 100.

So why are the straight men given preference, given that they accounted
for 96% of the reported harassment? And that 75% of the homosexual sexual
"misconduct" was consensual?

>The solution of having, say, male, female, homosexual, quarters, johns,
>and showers is somehow rather unsavory, no?

The solution is to get gay men to sign documents BEFORE enlisting to get
them to promise not to engage in sexual misconduct. But since they apparently
contribute a negligible amount compared to het men in this respect, this
is not a problem.

But more importantly, in order to integrate smoothly just as the military
integrated the races, educational opportunities must not be overlooked.

If you ask me, the crux of the problem is that many straight men are intolerant
of gay men (and of lesbians to perhaps a lesser degree). If the gay men are
forced to sign a no-sexual-misconduct contract, then the straight men might
also be forced to sign a no-verbal/physical/sexual (...strange, the number of
straight men who force gay men to give them blow jobs as a means of
humiliation!...[:^)]) harassment of gay men.

Plus educational seminars on tolerance of each other's sexual orientation.

Conduct, conduct, conduct. That's all it boils down to.

Apparently you want to give straight men "carte blanche" because it's not
in the "natural order of things" for them to be reeducated and become more
tolerant.

The armed services are supported through taxes by straight AND queer
individuals. Everyone should be given the opportunity to serve based on
ability and conduct, not on orientation.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc