From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:39:21 GMT

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.

Those are the only two reasons. If you grant the hets the same rights
now granted to the two sexes (separate showers & sleeping quarters from
who might be sexually attracted to them), then the privacy argument
goes away, leaving only unit cohesiveness.

]>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?"

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!

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.

-- 
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
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11720 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10213