From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:36:38 GMT

In <1992Dec13.213921.24283@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>In article <grendel.724268704@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>]In <1992Dec13.054433.7941@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]>]I will.  Age may indeed hamper one's ability to serve in the military.
>]>]In many instances, I'm sure it makes no difference.  I'm not arguing that
>]>]age discrimination is right.  But homosexuality doesn't hamper one's
>]>]performance either, and I'm not talking about Unit Cohesiveness.  The
>]>]homosexuals who have been discharged from the military have had exemplary
>]>]records.  If your only argument against gays in the military is that they
>]>]would cause tension and mistrust, I'd say you don't have much of an argument.
>]
>]>Very clever. The first thing you do is arbitrarily toss out the issue
>]>of Unit Cohesiveness, which just happens to be one of the most important
>]>issues in the discussion. Nice try, but you just can't do that in
>]>an honest argument.
>]
>]I don't "arbitrarily toss it out".  I say that, apart from that argument,
>]there's no reason why gays can't serve just as well.  It looks to me like
>]Unit Cohesiveness is your only argument against gays.  Is that true?  I'd
>]like you to answer that question, yes or no.  It would make the discussion
>]much easier.
>No. (Although I hold to my statement that you are throwing out this
>issue - look at the paragraph I responded to above, and look again how
>you waltz around it below with your focus on "military duties.")

>There is one other reason: violation of privacy rights of hets who
>would be forced to sleep and shower and otherwise spend intimate times
>with the gays.

Heteros and homos are already doing these things together in the military.
No discernable ill effects.  The only difference that would occur if gays
are openly accepted into the military is that they wouldn't have to hide
their identity any more.

>]>Since you have excluded the ability to get along with people under
>]>military circumstances (and ability that I claim is lacking in overt
>]>gays), you can then conclude anything you want. But, you are begging
>]>the issue and you know it.
>]
>]"And you know it"?  Uh-HUH.  Are gays less able to perform military duties?
>]No.  The only argument you've offered is that they would damage morale and
>]cause dangerous situations to arise.  That's as may be, but if it's true,
>]who is causing those dangerous situations?  Not the gays, but the people who
>]are reacting to the gays.  The gays are fine, aren't they?  They do the work
>]they're supposed to, right?  It's the homophobes who can't deal with gays,
>]who cause the weakening of morale.  You're misplacing the source of the problem.

>All right, let's stop the semantic dance. You want to argue on the
>grounds of military duties. Fine, go argue with yourself. The real issue
>is the effect on morale and on the hets who will be forced to live with
>the gays. Are you satisfied? Do you think you can stick to that point
>without ONCE AGAIN raising the issue of whether gays can perform
>what in your narrow view are "military duties?"

You didn't respond to my post above, which does concern the issue of morale.
Read it.  Who causes the morale problems?  Not the gays, but the people who
react negatively to the gays.

>By the way, how would you characterize women who don't want to be forced
>into intimate situations with men? Maleophobes? Why don't you drop the
>name calling, before I barf all over my keyboard!

What would you call people who don't want to shave their heads?  Baldophobes?
What would you call people who don't want to jump out of airplanes?
Heightophobes?  How about people who don't like to take orders?  Authoriphobes?

I call these people civilians.  And they have the right not to do any of these
things.  It's real simple.  Don't join the army.  In the army, as you have said
yourself, you have to do unpleasant things all the time.

Homophobe is a term that describes a person who, beyond disliking gays, takes
action which deprives gays of their rights.  Go ahead, barf your little heart
out.

>Let me ask YOU a question:

>If we must seriously impact the military or its current members in order
>to integrate gays into the military, should we do it? Please answer
>yes or no.

Yes.

>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

--
Yosha Bourgea                  "I think Rodney King said it best when he said,
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     `Ow!  Ow!  Ow!'"
WHO ARE THE BRAIN POLICE?               --Denis Leary

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh