From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:10:16 GMT

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>briand@anasazi.com writes:
>> A straight soldier is really afraid guy that an admittedly 
>>gay soldier will let him and every one else down.  That is the question
>>that will go through each soldier's mind if they are forced to accept 
>>gays.

>This implies a belief that homosexuality implies cowardice.  It was once
>widely believed that blacks were cowardly.  The misapprehension about
>gays will evaporate as quickly as that against blacks.

    I might have selected a different example there. Last time I checked 
prejudice against blacks was still a strong going concern.

>>If it is biological, then what other biological deficincies might a gay
>>soldier have?  Deficiencis that may or may not prevent him fulfilling his
>>job.  Do I want to take chance and bet my life on it?  I think not.

>Implicit in this argument is the idea that, if a person has one
>"biological deficiency" that is unrelated to their ability to perform,
>then that person =may= have others that =do= impact their performance. 
>Each person in the world is equally "likely" to have "deficiencies".  We
>all have some... nobody is perfect.

    This is a strong point. One of the most emminent Victorian era British 
soldiers, Sir Garnet Wolseley, suffered from a couple of disabilities. He 
had a pronounced limp from a wound suffered in Burma, and in the Crimea 
he was badly wounded by and exploding shell which took away the sight in 
one eye. Practically all of Wolseley's accomplishments happened years 
after he received his debilitating wounds, so apparently the soldiers 
who served under him managed to deal successfully with Wolseley's 
"biological deficiencies".
>> Is such a gutting of our defence forces worth
>>fulfilling a political promise for what is clearly minor minority.

    No, but it's not immediately clear that allowing homosexuals to serve  
would "gut" the military. 

>>Lastly, I'm not saying that I personnally agree with this mentality,
>>promote it, or am abhorred by it.  Only that this is the way things really
>>are, and have been for thousands of years.  Look how long it took to
>>integrate blacks into the military, and even then, the level of abuse
>blacks were subjected to and to a point tolerated is staggering. Because 
>>to cry out meant they weren't tough enough.  Like it or not, that's the 
>>way it was, and is.

>So, are you suggesting that integrating blacks a bad idea?

    Careful with your assumptions there, Greg. My reading of Brian's 
paragraph is not that it was a bad idea to integrate blacks but rather 
that it was a long and painful process. There's no reason to suspect that 
the process will be any less painful or disruptive for gays, and the crux 
of my position in this whole issue is that the unless you can demonstrate 
some strategic or tactical advantage to the admission of gays then the 
Armed Forces are going to be able to fend off the furor for change. From 
the military standpoint it's more of a matter of "if it ain't broke don't 
fix it" than anything to do with domestic social concerns.

    My guess is that eventually some "National Emergency" will come along 
and the need for soldiers will be so great that even gays will be admitted 
(at least on a short term basis), and that a lot of them will die heroic 
deathes before they earn the respect they deserve.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu