From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 18 Dec 92 06:08:11 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1992Dec16.042357.6412@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Dec14.224746.1042@calmasd.prime.com> 
> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
>
> >> As I said before, the military is not like any other institution.
> >
> >Yes, you have said that over and over and over and over.  But you have
> >yet to draw any conclusions from it that add to your argument.  A case
> >that is close to military are police and fire forces.  These jobs
> >often require living in close quarters, group cohesiveness, and
> >relying others in life threatening situations.  When police or fire
> >forces have lifted their bans on homosexuality they haven't been
> >overrun by "out" homosexual applicants.  
>
> A policeman or fireman can quit any time he wants. He isn't isolated from
> society and forced to live in close intimacy with members of his
> organization. He typically doesn't depend on unit cohesion, other
> than needing to get along will with his partner. The police office is
> typically older than the enlisted soldier, and better educated.
> These are still significant differences.

So how does this add to your argument that the military is SO
DIFFERENT that it could never accept open homosexuals?  Or counter my
argument that the military will not be overrun by out homosexuals?

> It is true that firemen even moreso police are closer to the military
> than other civilian occupations - to the point of even having
> paramilitary aspects such as military rank and military style
> uniforms. That doesn't make them the same, although I suspect that
> some of my arguments would apply to a police or fire department. I
> remember reading of a lot of problems when gay officers came out
> of the closet in San Francisco - presumably one of the most tolerant
> and informed places about gays.

I don't remember hearing of problems about S.F.  Do you you know how
SFPD resolved the problems?  Large city police forces have found that
officers with backgrounds similar to the neighborhood they serve work
best.  That's why large cities with gay neighborhoods are increasingly
recruiting openly gay officers.  One snag some cities have found is  
that many officers don't like being out at work.  This is one reason
that I don't believe that ending the ban will result in every
homosexual in the military coming out.

Also, many police forces which require officers of varying backgrounds
to be more effective, have implemented plans to help all officers
understand the importance of accepting diversity and still work as a
team.  (They also do it to help them better understand the people they
are serving.) I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to the military.  

I imagine you are going to argue here that the military isn't like the
police since it does not need homosexuals.  I'll try and head this off
by saying the role of the military is changing.  Yes, we still need a
strong defense, but most of the recent military involvements are much
more than just fighting wars.  Some of these are: the L.A. riots,
post-hurricane aid to South Florida, and peace keeping and police
actions in countries with cultures very different than ours.  We can
argue about the correctness of these actions elsewhere.  The point is
that the military is currently enacting Bush's new world order policy
and it requires much more of the military than just destroying things. 
The new role of the military also requires accepting, or at least an
acquiring an understanding of, a whole new range of humanity and
lifestyles than the military has ever faced before.  I don't see how
the military of country that is supposed to be the leading defender of
freedom and democracy in the world can be accepted in this new role if
it continues to discriminate against a large portion of its own citizens.

> >I'm missing something in your argument above.  It looks to me like you
> >are flip-flopping.  You argue privacy.  I attack it.  You say
> >you meant harassment.  I attack harassment.  You say you meant
> >privacy.  And on and on.
> 
> Huh? I contend that both are valid issues. Harrassment (and accusations
> of) are potentially more of a problem in the service where gays can
> be open. Privacy is definitely more of a problem.

You missed my point.  You were countering my arguments by switching
the topic.

> Okay, so let us assume this is true. [that more women than men are
> removed for the miliatry for homosexuality.] Does it mean an injustice, or 
> does it mean that more women then men servicepersons (proportinately)
> are gay.

Even if there are more lesbians than gays in the military, it still 
means an injustice.  One of the problems with prosecuting tailhook is
that many of the women involved are now facing charges of
homosexuality.  Many of these women have served in the military for
years.  Many were pretty well known as lesbians.  However, only after
tailhook did anyone care.  I've heard similar stories from other
lesbians and straight women in the military.  Basically the army looks
the other way on homosexuality of women until they need to use their
homosexuality against them.  The military is using the ban on
homosexuals inconsistently and in away that encourages the violation
of the military's own rules of conduct.

Also when someone is removed from the military they are asked for
other homosexual acquaintances in the military.  1500 men and women are
removed from the military every year on charges of homosexuality.  In
1990 alone the military spent $27 million to replace these people. 
This does not include the cost of investigation and discharges.  We
lost the training and experience of 1500 qualified military personnel.  
It isn't enough that ban is government sanctioned  discrimination, it
is also a the largest taxpayer financed witch hunt that our government
has ever undertaken.

[Forgive me for drastically editing the following.  There was a
lengthy discussion of various types harassment here and it has
splintered into many points and counter points.  The argument was
lacking focus and going nowhere.]

You have said all of the following about various forms of harassment:

> I have read plenty of instances of false accusations leading to problems. 

> Yes, sexual harassment rules are wrong IMHO (unless there are clear
> standards in the rules, and decent rules of evidence are used). 

> Or we can look at the way these politics [of sexual harassment] have 
> worked in other situations
> and see rules that have gotten completely out of hand.

> There are a lot of cases in the area of sexual harassment that are
> completely stupid.  
                                                                         
> What you would find is not rules
> against gay bashing, but rules against gay teasing, and rules against
> discriminating against gays (which would no doubt lead most commanders
> to always give gays good efficiency reports whether they deserved
> them or not!).

> >> A superior could face untrue charges of gay bashing for
> >> punishing (not beating) a gay subordinate - even if the punishment
> >> was required and not related to gayness. I'll bet that a lot of
> >> charges of sexual harassment today arise from similar situations.

> I am pointing out that a villian can be transformed into
> a victim by these sorts of politics. 

> Homosexuals that are now in are less likely to engage in sexual
> harassment because it would give away their sexual preference. In the
> future they might be able to hide actual sexual harrassment behind
> countercharges of gay bashing.

> ...where there have been a lot of cases
> of very questionable accusations that resulted in significant harm
> to the accusee.

All of your arguments on harassment read like you believe the reason
that employers (private and government) have harassment policies is to
give gays, racial minorities, and women a way to victimize straight
white men.  You deny that any actual harassment occurs and argue that
the only ones being harassed are the accused.  Think about what you
are saying for awhile.  It doesn't make any sense.  

Why would the government and private employers which are predominately
run by straight white men enact such policies?  Why would employers
that would fire or lay off their employees without batting an eye care
if harassment is occurring?

The reason that employers have policies against harassment is because
harassment is detrimental to productivity of the workers involved. 
The person who is doing the harassment isn't working.  The employee
being harassed is trying to perform their job in a hostile environment
that interferes with their productivity.  Workplace cohesion and
morale suffer.  All of this translates into wasted time and
unproductive workers.  Employers are not trying to be fair or play
social engineer.  They are trying to maximize the productivity of the
their workforce.  Employers take harassment seriously not out of the
goodness of their hearts, but because it affects the bottom line.

Not allowing workplace harassment is setting a standard of conduct. 
The military is already big on establishing rules on conduct.  You are
right that some people will resent rules of conduct because it
requires them to control their behavior.  I say tough.  The military
that thrives on discipline and if it can't control the conduct of its
own personnel how is it going to have the discipline required to fight
a war?

Jim