From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:23:48 GMT
     <1992Dec10.181122.25797@anasazi.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec10.163550.24021@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
john@anasazi.com writes:
>]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.

And the counter point is that, since the frequency of homosexual sexual
harassment is no greater than heterosexual, then there will be =no= overall
increase in sexual harassment.  More different kinds of cases, yes, but no
more =actual= cases.

>]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.

Egad... I hope you didn't mean that the way is came out.  The original point
was that =all= cases of sexual harassment must be dealt with firmly and
justly.  To suggest that doing so reduces morale implies that it is better
to let it go unpunished.

=ALL= sexual behavior that is inappropriate to the profession can and must
be dealt with in a consistent and fair manner.  A failure in =that= regard
can only lead to a disintegration of =any= semblance of morale.

>]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." I can just imagine the outcry in the press and from gay
>activist groups the first time a gay is accused of sexual harassment.

The same arguments were used regarding "racial harassment".  The military is
dealing with such cases reasonably well.  I think they could do as well in
this case.

Also, the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" argument is wearing
pretty thin around here.  It shows a great deal more fear than reason on the
part of the presenter.  Nobody has yet brought up "special rights", except
those opposed to equal rights.  It is a straw man argument.  Stick to the
issues.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton