From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Gays in the Military
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:31:44 GMT


This thread has been encumbered by some bad arguments.  That is not to say
that either side is obviously wrong, only that some of what they are saying
does not help make their case.

For example, if someone were to say "I believe the earth is round because I
saw it on a bumpersticker", most of us would agree that the belief is a good
one -- but that one shouldn't believe everything she sees on a bumpersticker.
The argument "it was on a bumpersticker so it must be true" is not a good
argument, even if THIS PARTICULAR bumpersticker happened to be right.

The point is that the conclusion of an argument may be right, even if the
argument itself is no good.

With that in mind, let's look at some arguments about gays in the military:


  1: History has proven that any nation which endorses homosexuality loses
     the capacity to govern itself.

This is a perfect example of an accurate statistic which is useless to make
a point.  Here is another which more obviously illustrates the problem:
"Everybody who ever drank water died."

The problem in both cases is that, excepting those examples which haven't
done so yet, everybody dies, and every nation collapses.

Unless you can illustrate a connection between `endorsing homosexuality' and
`losing the capacity to govern itself', all you have shown is a correlation,
not a cause.  Such correlations can be drawn about virtually any property of
any country: "Any nation which endorses heterosexuality loses the capacity to
govern itself".

I am not saying that endorsing homosexuality is good, only that  * this
particular argument *  is no good.


  2: Who lusts after whom?

Discussing the problem of unwanted sexual attention, someone said:

> Gay people do not lust over straight people anymore than a straight person
> might lust over a gay person [.]

And got this reply:

> I know that all gay people donot lust after straight people, but just tell
> me, how do they know who is straight or gay from outer appearance.

It's not that all gays don't lust after straights, it's that they don't
necessarily lust after gays either.  Just because Fred may be gay does not
mean he lusts after every other man he sees.

Straight men don't lust after every woman they meet; straight women don't lust
after all men.  Why should we suppose that this is any different for gay men
or women?

Continuing, the last-quoted person (whose name I could not find) said:

> [H]ow do [gays] know who is straight or gay from outer appearance.
> Straights can obviously tell the difference.

Really?  How?  I've met several people who gave no indication whatever of
being gay, only to find that they were.  Some others I know of who were (in
whispers) suspected of being gay quite definitely are not.

So far as I can make out, there is no way of being certain about another
person's sexual preference besides asking him or her.  Stereotypes about how
they dress or their personal mannerisms seem to be very fallible.


Again, I am not saying that the question of unwanted sexual attention in tight
living quarters should be ignored -- only that  * this particular line of
argument *  (that gays will lust after people of their own sex) is not a good
one.

 *

My own feeling is that the military has to work smoothly, and that any major
abrupt change which interferes with smooth operations is probably a mistake.
There are an assortment of support services in the military, which involve
neither close living quarters nor communal showers.  (Several people who have
been drummed out were in upper-level administrative jobs.)

On the other hand, the US only has so many resources; we've spent millions of
dollars enforcing the ban on gays, when those dollars could have been spent
on making the military machinery run better.

If the ban is going to be lifted, doing so for those in non-combat jobs first
seems a good step.  After ten years to see what happens, further steps can be
taken (or previous steps undone) based on how the changes have worked out.

 *

I personally find the "homosexuality is immoral" part of this thread rather
bizarre.  People in the military do things like run other humans over with
tanks, drop nuclear warheads on cities, bury people alive, carpet-bomb vast
tracts of land, and other kinds of mayhem.

Worrying about whether the people who obliterated Nagasaki (or the ones who
might obliterate Moscow) might be gay, and therefore sinners, strikes me as
complaining about a murderer who broke into your house because he didn't wipe
his feet.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Common sense isn't any more common on Usenet than it is anywhere else."
                                                            -- Henry Spencer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU