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: 14 Dec 92 06:38:19 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1992Dec10.163550.24021@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <1992Dec8.155819.1015@calmasd.prime.com> 
  jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec7.222559.5554@anasazi.com>, 
> ]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> ]
> ]No, it is probably much less of a problem for several reasons.  First,
> ]there will likely always be fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals    
> ]in the military.  This creates a lower upper bound for the number of
> ]potential problems of sexual harassment by homosexuals.  Second, by the
> ]time homosexuals are old enough to enter the military, many have
> ]already had years of practice at controlling their potential sexual
> ]attractions.  (Homosexuals are in every high school and there are few,
> ]if any, problems with homosexuals sexually molesting heterosexuals in
> ]showers or elsewhere.)
> 
> And it is even less of a problem if the gays aren't allowed in the
> military in the first place, which is my point.

By following your line of reasoning it would also be less if only
homosexuals were allowed in the military.  (i.e. if heterosexuals were
banned from the military instead of homosexuals there would be no
cases of heterosexuals being harassed by homosexuals.)

> ]
> ]> Now, on top of that add the various varieties of sexual harassment
> ]> that are opened up.... a gay commander sexually harassed his
> ]> subordinates in Vietnam, causing great morale problems, according to
> ]> Col. Hackworth. 
> ]
> ]This does not prove your point that there are potentially more cases
> ]of sexual harassment by homosexuals than by heterosexuals.  You need
> ]to look at all the cases of sexual harassment to conclude this.
> 
> But that was NOT my point. My point is that with homosexuals in the military,
> there will be more cases of sexual harassment than without, because there
> will be more opportunity.

To make this point, you need to prove there will be more homosexuals
in the military after the ban is lifted than there are currently. 
I'll agree it seems likely there would be more homosexuals in the
military, but I still doubt that the military will be flooded with out
of the closet homosexuals.  It hasn't happened when any other
institution has lifted a ban on homosexuals.

> ]> and there are lots
> ]> of cases of heterosexual harassment (remember "tailhook"?).
> ]
> ]So your assumption here is that homosexuals should be banned from the
> ]military because heterosexuals have been unable to control their
> ]sexual attractions.  I think this is an unfair conclusion. 
> 
> No. As I have argued before, the actual cases of sexual harrassment are
> a side issue compared to the perceived lack of privacy that heterosexuals
> will feel. 

But you weren't arguing privacy above...you were arguing harrassment
cases.  So would it be safe to assume that you will quit arguing
harrassment now?

> ]Do you not believe that as long as the military fairly and
> ]consistently cracks down on sexual harassment (both heterosexual and
> ]homosexual cases) that the number of incidents will decrease over time?
> 
> Yes, at CONSIDERABLE expense of unit morale. Cracking down on sexual
> harassment almost always leads to excesses, where people make false
> claims of sexual harassment. 

Can you site some examples?  Also give some examples of the falsely
accused being falsely convicted.

Currently the ban on homosexuals leads to excesses.  Currently six
times as many women as men are removed from the military for being
homosexual.  A woman is most like to have charges of homosexuality
filed against her after she has complained about sexual harrassment. 
Current it looks like the ban is used to protect men who sexually
harass women.

> This will happen a lot to gays, and likewise
> there will be a lot of complaints of gay bashing. All of this will simply
> add to distrust and fear between members of the military, and THAT
> is seriously detrimental to the military. Better to avoid the problem
> in the first place by sexual preference segregation.

Before you switch arguments on me again, are you now saying that you would
agree to homosexuals in the military if they were segregated?

> ]I'll also contend that since homosexuals are already in the military,
> ]that lifting the ban on homosexuals will not significantly increase
> ]the numbers of homosexuals in the military or increase the cases of
> ]sexual harassment by homosexuals.  If anything, it seems to me that
> ]an "out" homosexual is the least likely person to harass anyone,
> ]especially with everyone constantly watching.  
> 
> Why? The "out" homosexual will be a specially protected species, and
> complaints against him will likely be ignored because they will be seen as
> "gay bashing."     ^^^

That's him and her.  How would allowing homosexuals in the military
make them a "protected species"?  Aren't people in the military who
beat up others currently subject to disciplinary action?  Or are you
arguing that it will be more difficult to get away with beating up
homosexuals after the ban is lifted?  

> One of the problems with using legal means for social engineering is
> that it leads to excesses. 

The current ban on homosexuals is also "social engineering" and it 
leads to excesses.  Why are these excesses acceptable?

> All of a sudden ordinary human interactions can 
> suddenly come under the microscope in a courtroom, and this causes people
> to be more careful and suspicious of each other... exactly what the military 
> does not need!

So you are arguing that we have an unfair military system that can't
stand up under our own country's legal system.  I don't know if that
scares you, but it scares me.

Jim