From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:47:46 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1992Dec14.155554.13841@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <1992Dec13.223819.1036@calmasd.prime.com> 
jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
>>> 
>>> But that was NOT my point. My point is that with homosexuals in the military,
>>> there will be more cases of sexual harassment than without, because there
>>> will be more opportunity.
>>
>>To make this point, you need to prove there will be more homosexuals
>>in the military after the ban is lifted than there are currently. 
>
> Yes, I'll concede that there is some truth to this, but that is a
> reasonable assumption. However, having gayness accepted in the military is l
> ikely also a cause of increased sexual advances.

I'll contend ending the ban on homosexuals won't increase the
incidents of sexual harassment.  Since homosexuals are no more or
less likely to sexual harass someone, overall the number of sexual
harassment cases should remain the same.  I could imagine that
there would be an increase in sexual advances.  I could also imagine
that there might instead be a decrease in sexual advances.  An "out"
homosexual would surely be watched closely.  Neither of us know.  All
we have to go on are similar situations.  Other countries that have
removed bans they had on homosexuals haven't experienced an increase
in harassment problems.  Why would we?

> >I'll agree it seems likely there would be more homosexuals in the
> >military, but I still doubt that the military will be flooded with out
> >of the closet homosexuals.  It hasn't happened when any other
> >institution has lifted a ban on homosexuals.
>
> As I said before, the military is not like any other institution.

Yes, you have said that over and over and over and over.  But you have
yet to draw any conclusions from it that add to your argument.  A case
that is close to military are police and fire forces.  These jobs
often require living in close quarters, group cohesiveness, and
relying others in life threatening situations.  When police or fire
forces have lifted their bans on homosexuality they haven't been
overrun by "out" homosexual applicants.  
                                            
> >> >> and there are lots
> >> >> of cases of heterosexual harassment (remember "tailhook"?).
> >> >
> >> >So your assumption here is that homosexuals should be banned from the
> >> >military because heterosexuals have been unable to control their
> >> >sexual attractions.  I think this is an unfair conclusion. 
> >> 
> >> No. As I have argued before, the actual cases of sexual harassment are
> >> a side issue compared to the perceived lack of privacy that heterosexuals
> >> will feel. 
> >
> >But you weren't arguing privacy above...you were arguing harassment
> >cases.  So would it be safe to assume that you will quit arguing
> >harassment now?
>
> No (see above). However, I am also arguing privacy.
>

I'm missing something in your argument above.  It looks to me like you
are flip-flopping.  You argue privacy.  I attack it.  You say
you meant harassment.  I attack harassment.  You say you meant
privacy.  And on and on.

> >> Yes, at CONSIDERABLE expense of unit morale. Cracking down on sexual
> >> harassment almost always leads to excesses, where people make false
> >> claims of sexual harassment. 
> >
> >Can you site some examples?  Also give some examples of the falsely
> >accused being falsely convicted.
> Now that would be hard to do, wouldn't it, since I would have to have
> information not available to the courts.

Well then you don't have much of an argument here...just paranoia of
imagined excesses.

> >Currently the ban on homosexuals leads to excesses.  Currently six
> >times as many women as men are removed from the military for being
> >homosexual.  A woman is most like to have charges of homosexuality
> >filed against her after she has complained about sexual harassment. 
> >Current it looks like the ban is used to protect men who sexually
> >harass women.
> Do you have statistics to back this up? 

I've heard the above stated on several occasions.  Two occasions that
I recall are: on _Nightline_ in interviews with people on both sides
of the ban issue and on _Face the Nation_ in a discussion with various
members of congress.   I've also heard a three times number used. 
However, every time I've heard this argument, the other side never
argues or disputes it.  However, I think it would be safe to assume
that more women than men are discharged for homosexuality.  I've never
heard anyone claim otherwise.

> Even if you do, there are
> two problems:
>   (1) a complaint of sexual harassment may or may not be true

Even so, counter-charging that someone is a lesbian does nothing to
disprove a sexual harassment charge.

>   (2) a complaint of homosexuality may or may not be true

Even so, counter-charging that someone is a lesbian does nothing to
disprove a sexual harassment charge.

> The more rules, the more false complaints.

So sexual harassment rules are wrong then?  Or is having a rule than
bans homosexuals wrong?  If rules are wrong, you can't have it both
ways.

> >> Why? The "out" homosexual will be a specially protected species, and
> >> complaints against him will likely be ignored because they will be seen as
> >> "gay bashing."     ^^^
> >
> >That's him and her.  How would allowing homosexuals in the military
> Jesus! At the time I wrote this, I thought about using him and her,
> but decided it wasn't worth the bandwidth, because I didn't think
> people would be silly enough to jump on it. 

Sorry, I got your implied "him and her".  I needed the "her" to make
my argument.  I wasn't jumping on your omission for other reasons.

> >make them a "protected species"?  Aren't people in the military who
> >beat up others currently subject to disciplinary action?  Or are you
> >arguing that it will be more difficult to get away with beating up
> >homosexuals after the ban is lifted?  
> No, I am arguing that gay bashing will naturally result, through our
> typical pressure group politics, in regulations that make gays essentially
> protected. 

Well, since you can't site any cases here to back your claim, I guess we
are left with having to wait and see.  

Gay bashing in the military occurs now and goes unreported. 
Homosexuals aren't going to do anything about it when they get fired
for even making the claim. I don't feel that homosexuals need special
protection from gay bashing.  Assault is assault.

> A superior could face untrue charges of gay bashing for
> punishing (not beating) a gay subordinate - even if the punishment
> was required and not related to gayness. I'll bet that a lot of
> charges of sexual harassment today arise from similar situations.
                            
Again, let's have some proof.  It sounds to me like you are trying to
blame the victim.

> >> One of the problems with using legal means for social engineering is
> >> that it leads to excesses. 
> >
> >The current ban on homosexuals is also "social engineering" and it 
> >leads to excesses.  Why are these excesses acceptable?
> Yes.

I don't understand your "yes" here.  Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
I didn't ask a yes/no question.

> >> All of a sudden ordinary human interactions can 
> >> suddenly come under the microscope in a courtroom, and this causes people
> >> to be more careful and suspicious of each other... exactly what the military 
> >> does not need!
> >
> >So you are arguing that we have an unfair military system that can't
> >stand up under our own country's legal system.  I don't know if that
> >scares you, but it scares me.
> No, I don't think our military system is unfair. I do, however, have
> deep suspicion of criminalizing a lot of human interactions that are
> vague - such as "sexual harassment." 

Removing the ban on homosexuals isn't criminalizing anyone.  In fact,
it is just the opposite.  Homosexuals will have the same code of
conduct.  Since homosexuals are no more or less likely to engage in
sexual harassment, the overall number of sexual harassment cases will
remain the same.

> It is too easy to make charges
> that are unfounded and use those as a weapon (for an example, note how
> many times parents are deprived of their children as a result of
> untrue allegations of child abuse - and I claim that child abuse is
> much more of a crime than sexual harassment.) 

I don't see what child abuse has to do with this discussion.  It isn't
comparable to sexual harassment.

> And yes, it is damn
> scary to criminalize vague social interactions.

Sexual harassment isn't a "vague social interaction".  It is very well
defined.  I'll agree that lots of people don't understand it.  That's
why many companies educate employees on what is and isn't sexual
harassment.  If you have a human resources representative they should be
able to explain harassment very clearly.

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh