From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:51:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.002350.21895@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.212551.14782@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec23.183439.17001@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>>>BTW, in some services, hetro soldiers can still be prosecuted for 
>>>>consential sodomy or oral copulation with a women while on base.  Should 
>>>>Clinton repeal this ban also, while he repeals it for homosexuals?

>>Where do you get this stuff from Brian? 

>U.S. News & World Report.

Could you let me know which issue. I was basing what I said from what I got
from articles that I have read(newspaper, Nov. and Dec. issues of NEWSWEEK)
have indicated that Clinton will pass stricter rules for military
people concerning sexual conduct. I went and re-read some of the NEWSWEEK
articles last night and I admit they were somewhat slim on details of just
exactly what would and would not be covered other then "sexual harasment". 
The articles only spoke vaguely about "other changes". Could be I was wrong
(1st time---NOT)about Clinton's plans concerning sodomy or oral copulation. If
such is the case I apoligize for the near flame! 

>And though I believe the subject of the
>article was in the Navy and prosecuted for consential sodomy, I could not
>remember precisely and so again did not overstate the claim.

I think you're right here. I beleive the consential sodomy took place with
this guys wife! Not sure how they got caught though. But make no mistake that
such acts, no matter where comitted, are currently covered in manual under the 
personal conduct chapters. Punishments are also covered.

>To paraphase what many have proclaimed here: "the military no business in the 
>private lives (i.e. sexual) of its personnel, and so whether someone is gay or 
>not should be irrelevant."  Not my words, not my thoughts.  But looking at
>things from their side for a moment, I must ask, if such assertion is true, 
>mustn't the military do away with all of its rules regarding consential sex?  
>And obviously I'm not talking about criminal acts.

I would tend to agree with those that think the military should stay out of
of the private lives of its personnel. HOWEVER the military doesn't see it that
way and never has.(At least not our modern military) It would seem pretty clear
that some of the old standing rules that exist will have to at least be 
modified if gays are allowed in. 

>Well, since sodomy and oral copulation would still be banned, wouldn't this
>be discriminatory towards the gay members?  After all, there's not much
>left, except maybe hand-jobs. 8-).  That may offend some, which is not my
>intent (maybe a little levity).  However, if it is repealed for gays, must not
>it also be repealed for hetrosexuals?

Actually this is a good question. One thing for sure is that the military 
has always done is to make sure that once you're in you become part of the
"team". This means no individuality of any kind(hair, dress ect.)In short
there is one set of rules for EVERYONE which are usually strictly enforced.
I think it would be a big mistake to have any "special" rules for any
group of people within the military. Further I can't see much chance of 
the established military allowing that to happen without a fight.

>Just some points of ponder.

And ponder them I have!

Stan Knight
|Ponder not and stay ignorant forever|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality