From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:25:37 GMT

In <1992Dec12.065119.15036@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>In article <grendel.724112278@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>]In <1992Dec9.195705.14181@brtph560.bnr.ca> chrisf@brtph316.bnr.ca (Chris Fulmer) writes:

>]If there were a platoon of soldiers in which were two homosexuals, and this
>]platoon were out fighting in a foreign country, the intelligent heterosexuals,
>]regardless of their feelings toward homosexuality, would reason: there is no
>]way I can get these gays out of the platoon; I am involved in a life-or-death
>]situation, and without unit cohesion we are all at risk; therefore, I will
>]treat these gays just like everyone else so that we don't get killed.

>Have you ever experienced the intelligence of the average grunt? I realize
>that today, as opposed to when I was in the military, the educational level
>of soldiers is higher, but still we are not talking about rocket scientists.
	 
We don't need to be talking about rocket scientists.  This isn't too difficult
to figure out.

>Furthermore, the "intelligent" soldiers might decide that the gays were
>a threat to the fighting efficiency of their platoon, and thus a threat
>to their lives and the lives of their friends, and do something (hazing,
>harrassment, fragging, for example) to get them out of the platoon.

Sure.  Unity through fear, not trust.  Makes sense.

>]>It seems to me that because of that line of reasoning,
>]>the military is not yet ready to be integrated.  I expect
>]>that if you were to have full integration and immediately
>]>have a war, then a significant number of the gays would be
>]>killed in the above situations.  And, that's not something
>]>that we want to risk.
>]
>]Who's "we"?  The army is a volunteer organization.  If a gay is in the army,
>]it's because he or she wants to be.  They're willing to risk their lives to
>]serve their country.

>So what?

What do you mean, so what?  Did you read the post I was responding to?
"That's not something that we want to risk."  Who's "we"?, I asked.
What don't you understand?

>]>Instead, the gay-rights people should try to integrate
>]>the rest of society, to the effect that a soldier,
>]>upin entering the military, wouldn't think twice about
>]>serving with a gay man.
>]
>]Nice idea, and I'm all for it, but unfortunately it's an improbable task.
>]"Integrating society" isn't something that can be done without an enormous
>]consensus.  Look at racial integration: how long did it take _that_ to work?
>]Some would argue (not me) that blacks _still_ aren't fully integrated.

>Oh, I see.... so let's integrate the area where we are most likely to
>cause death and destruction first, because it is easier. Great logic!

No need for d&d if laws are enforced.

>]People already get killed in the military.  That's what war is all about.
>]When the military is not at war, there's no reason for anyone to get killed.

>I guess you don't know that fewer American soldiers died during the Gulf
>War than during normal peacetime training, because normal training is
>quite dangerous? I had a number of friends who died in the military when
>not at war.

I would have to assume they weren't murdered by their fellow soldiers,
and that they didn't die because of lack of Unit Cohesiveness.  If this
assumption is false, that means laws are not enforced in the military; this
is a problem that needs to be dealt with.  If this assumption is correct,
that's the kind of risk anyone, straight or otherwise, takes upon entering
the military.

>]The military is a good place to start integration because it is a rigidly
>]controlled environment.  

>It also happens to be one of the most sensitive environments there is
>to this sort of experiment! I can't think of a place where there are
>more people uncomfortable with homosexuality than in the military. I can't
	
Then isn't this the place that needs the most work to change these attitudes?

>think of a place where things which cause strife between individuals
>could be more destructive. I don't know about you, but I don't want
>the crew of a ballistic missile submarine screwed up by your experiment!

There are lots of reasons a crew of a sub could be "screwed up".  The
presence of a gay soldier would have to be among the least likely.  If
you're in a life-or-death situation, are you going to do something
that threatens everyone's life because one of your crewmates is gay?
Or are you going to concentrate on staying alive and worry about prejudices
later?

>]This isn't a "social experiment"; it's the implementation of equal rights.  

>Let's examine this. Do I have an equal right to shower and sleep in the
>same quarters with those whom I find sexually attractive? If not, why
>do gays?
	
This argument has only been advanced about a thousand times in this discussion.
It leads nowhere.  Gays are not attracted by all men, just as you are not
attracted by all women.  The purpose of the military is not sex.  People don't
enter it to get sex.  The fact that a gay soldier would be in intimate
surroundings with straight soldiers is incidental.  What is far more important
is that soldiers of any orientation be allowed to serve if they so choose.

>Let's examine this a bit farther. You are assuming that gays should have
>equal rights. From what do you derive this? Does this same logic apply
>to child molesters or rapists? After all, a lot of them simply have a
>sexual preference which is against social norms?

John, do you even read this newsgroup, or do you just post?  I find it hard
to believe you haven't seen this argument advanced and refuted about _ten_
thousand times.  I can't believe you're actually taking this tired old tack.
No, child molesters and rapists are not the same as homosexuals.  The fact
that their sexual practices are against social norms is completely irrelevant.
Molestation and rape are crimes, because unlike homosexuality, they involve
the deprivation of rights of one of the parties involved.  Gay sex, for the
most part, takes place between two consenting adults.  No one gets hurt.
There's nothing wrong with it.  Nobody suffers any ill effects.  Are you
telling me you don't see any difference between that and rape?

>Seriously, why should we cause all this disruption to give the "right"
>to gays to join the military (as if that were a right)?

Because equal rights is what this country is all about.  It is sadly ironic
that our military, supposedly that organization which is designed to fight
to preserve the freedoms of this country, does not observe them.

>[BTW, most places _do_ employ gays; the
>]military is an exception to the rule in our society.  Time to catch up.

>The military is an exception to a lot of rules. For example, most
>places don't arrest you if you quit because you don't like the working
>conditions. Most places don't expect you to sleep in foxholes with
>people shooting at you. Of course the military is different, because,
>amazingly enough, the military really is a different place. Got it?
	
And Disneyland is a different place from CNN, yet people work in both places
and get paid in both places and take risks in both places.  So what?
The military is a job just like anything else; it is organized by the govern-
ment, but you get paid for working there.  Different jobs have different
risks, and when you agree to work at a job, you agree to take the risks
involved with it.  It's reasonable to agree to uncomfortable situations
like sleeping in foxholes when working for the military, because those
kinds of situations are to be expected in battle.  But, like any other
job, equal rights are also to be expected.  There's no reason to make an
exception for the military because it's run by the government.

>I'll ask my quiz while I'm at it.... have YOU ever served in the
>military?

Nope.  Never will, if I can help it.  Doesn't matter.  I've never worked at
Cracker Barrel, either, but I still know it's not okay to discriminate against
gays.

>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                   "Newspapers screamed for blood...
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     it was the best of times."
Squid Power                              --Sting

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh