From: daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:34:36 GMT
Distribution: usa

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>In article <daj20.724440585@junkers> daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks) writes:
>]>In article <1992Dec13.222013.25233@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]
>]>>   Okay, I'll explain  it again (for about the 3rd time in this thread).
>]>>   Hets need not fear sexual interest by the African American. They
>]>>   do fear it from gays. I know that some people will say that gays
>]>>   won't find hets sexually attractive, but that is utter crap, as indicated
>]>>   by plenty of unfortunate incidents where gays made passes at hets
>]>>   who responded violently. It DOES happened. It HAS happened. It will
>]>>   happen again. It is frightening and anger provoking for many young men, and
>]>>   that is dangerous to military units. 
>]
>]
>]	We can assume then that it specifically frightens you?
>
>I don't know why you can assume that, since I have repeatedly stated
>that it doesn't. 

	I meant it as a question; sorry, I don't read close to everything
	in this group and didn't see you state that before.


>You seem to be making the typical mistake of today's
>liberals (which you may or may not be) which is to assume that one's 
>psychological pathologies are behind any illiberal or un-PC position. 
>Unlike today's liberals, some of us believe that it is possible to
>have a position based on logic rather than emotion.

	No, but I admit to thinking that people's emotions show
	through many times in the arguments they make - that is
	they start with an emotional reaction and try to build up
	a logical argument that specifically supports their emotional
	conclusions.

	I also believe it is possible, and also preferable, to base
	a position on logic rather than emotion.  I don't think any
	one group is any better at this than any other group (IMO) - a
	point we would seem to disagree on based on your comments
	regarding liberals.  However, I can also make room for positions 
	that are based on moral convictions, as long as one accepts that 
	these are very personal and do not, in general, make strong arguments.


>I'll say it again: I have no personal fear of gays in the military. I
>will never serve in the military again, due to age; even if I was, my
>response to a gay pass would just be a "no thanks" - not a fist or
>a knife that many in the military (and some on this net) would
>respond with. From a personal stand point, it isn't an issue.
>
>]	I agree with Peter Young that this is an irrational fear.  And
>]	the fact I think it is an irrational fear has nothing to do with
>]	the fact that gays will make passes at het's and even sometimes
>]	rape them.
>
>So is the fear of death. Are you going to legislate it away also?
>

	No.  But that wasn't my point.

	I wasn't trying to say that fear of gays should somehow be
	legislated away.

	I was trying to say that whether or not gays are allowed into
	the military should have nothing to do with the fact that some
	people will be afraid of them (which you had mentioned several
	times in the paragraph I original responded to).  I was trying
	to make that point to counter the potential argument that 
	because these guys will be afraid that gays shouldn't be allowed
	in the military (Note, I'm not saying that was what you were
	saying at all, only that what you wrote seemed to be leading in
	that direction (well to me)).


>]
>]	I wonder if this gives those that are frightened by this a greater
>]	appreciation for how women feel when confronted with unwanted 
>]	passes at them or the fear of being raped?  And yet there are
>]	many women in the military who do want to be there ... hmmm, 
>]	I guess they have been able to deal with their fears of unwanted
>]	passes and rape well enough.  I guess men just can't be expected
>]	to have to be that mature is that it?
>
>You may not realize this, but in the military women are SEGREGATED from
>men in their sleeping and showering and pooping quarters. As I have said
>before, that would be one solution to the gays-in-the-military issue.

	I do realize that.  And segregation would be one solution to
	the level of acceptance gays should get in the military (I'm
	not saying I agree with this particular solution).  However,
	to get to the point of talking about solutions to the 
	acceptance issue, we must first agree that gays should be
	allowed in the military (note that i'm distinguishing betweeen
	the decision to allow them in and what happens after that).

	Personally, I feel that gays should be allowed into the
	military.  However, I feel that once that decision is made
	there are more to be made about how, and to what extent, it
	should be carried out.  About that I am still wondering...


>]
>]	I think you have brought out the most basic reason that 
>]	motivates many who are against gays in the military, and that
>]	is simply fear.  As you put it: fear of sexual interest from
>]	gays, fear of unwanted passes, even fear of rape.  All I can
>]	say is that the proper way to deal with fear IS NOT to try
>]	to make it go away; it doesn't work that way.
>
>THat's nice. Now why don't you go down to San Diego and tell that to
>the tough dudes in Seal Team One. Good luck! Then go to the Recruit Training
>Depot and explain it to the street toughs who are being processed into
>the military.

	I don't understand what you mean (sorry i'm not trying to be
	difficult here).

	Are you saying that because these dudes are tough seal team
	members or street toughs that they wouldn't exactly welcome
	such a message?  I never said they would, or that any of this
	would be easy to do, just that it should be done.  I feel that
	you are saying, "well, yea, we should do that, but i reality
	it too hard".


>If all the touchie-feelie social engineering stuff worked, we would have
>a lot fewer social problems. In fact, it ain't that simple. Modification
>of behavior is difficult even in people who want to modify their
>behavior.  


	I agree, it is most difficult.  But without trying at all
	even fewer social problems would get worked out.

	I think it's a promising that society is opening up so many
	previous taboo subjects to discussion.  In a way, that's more
	important right now than everyone agreeing on the solutions.


>Schools are finding that the huge amount of PC instruction
>that now passes for education at some institutions is resulting in
>anti-PC students. Funny, but people are just not clay that you can
>mold to your idealistic model.

	I'm not familiar with what you mean here exactly.  I don't
	know what kinds of PC instruction is taking place in today's
	schools.

	However, you are right about students not just letting themselves
	be molded to whatever they are told.  That's what makes this
	country so great.  These PC pushers should take a lesson from
	the Religion pushers, or visa versa even.  Americans want to
	think for themselves and will do so no matter which group is
	currently pushing their ideas on us.  Education should be
	apolitical as well as secular (non-religious).


>]>I see no difference between an irrational fear of skin color and
>]>irrational fear of getting fucked in the ass.
>
>Obviously. However, these days of AIDS an undesired ass-fucking is something
>that is fearful indeed. However, realistically, as far as I can tell
>homophobia (used in a more correct sense - FEAR of homosexuals or
>homosexual activities) seems to be based on an insecurity about
>one's masculinity - not uncommon among adolescents (such as the
>folks joining the military) - and apparently especially common among
>the more "macho" folks (such as those who want to join the combat arms).

	Just a note that you are responding to the previous poster
	here, not me.

	My point again is that fear should be confronted, not avoided.

	I would imagine that a pretty typical fear in the military is
	that of death.  I would bet the military trains their soldiers
	to somehow confront and come to grips with this fear, yes?
	But with a fear of gays this cannot be done?  Because these
	guys are too tough?  Granted it would be a lot harder than
	dealing with fear of death - death being the one thing even
	a tough man might be persuaded to admit he is afraid of.


>Now, you can spend all day arguing about how irrational that fear is.
>I don't deny it's irrationality, and, in spite of the assertions of the
>homophiles on the net,  I don't share that fear - at 44 years of
>age I know who I am - even if you folks don't. 

	Okay, good, we agree it is irrational, just as any other fear
	is.  Now I propose that this fear needs to be confronted
	knowing full well that this is not a trivial task (for the
	military or for any other group for that matter).


>However, the moment you take the leap of logic from "the fear is irrational" 
>to "therefore we should bring gays into the military" - we part company
>in our views. You leap from what is to what you wish should be, assuming
>that what you wish should be is something that can simply be created.
>That is typical logic of the social engineer, and the failures of the
>resulting policies are legion.


	No, no, no.  That's not what I'm doing.  I agree with you that the
	leap of logic you state is incorrect.  What I was trying to do
	was to point out that the opposite is also an incorrect leap
	of faith;  that is from "soldiers fear gays" to "therefore gays
	should be kept out of the military".

	So, what I am saying then, in summary, is that this fear of gays
	has nothing to do with the issue of whether gays should be allowed
	into the militay.  Okay, now, I do think it has a lot to do with
	what must be done after gays are allowed in - that is this fear
	should be dealt with somehow.  And, yes, it won't be easy at all.


>-- 
>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
> - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
> - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -



danj.
--
dan jatnieks.                      i'll take these opinions if no-one else will.
daj20@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com

Seinfeld, Star Trek TNG, The Simpsons - that's all I need, I don't need anyth...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton