Organization: Virginia Department of Health
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:47:06 EST
From:         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military
              17 Nov 1992 20:18:04 GMT from <crawford@BEN.DEV.UPENN.EDU>

On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:18:04 GMT Lauren L. Crawford said:
>In article <CHRISTIA%92111705580421@ASUACAD.BITNET> MKLINE@VDH.BITNET (Michael
>A. Kline) writes:
>
>>This may  well not  happen anyhow. Already  rumors are  circulating from
>>several  sources that  if Clinton  does lift  the ban,  resignations and
>>early retirement requests will number in the tens of thousands.
>
>This strikes me as extremely hypocritical (not you, Michael, but the
>potential resignations you've mentioned).  When I lived in the
>Philippines, I lived near the Naval base at Subic Bay.
>
>How can these same men point fingers at homosexuals and say that they're
>any better?  The Bible never ranks sin; warped sexuality is warped
>sexuality, no matter if it's hetero- or homosexual.  If we let adulterers
>and fornicaters into the military, why should we ban homosexuals?
>
I heard some more on this last night. A couple of points some retired
general said, and when you think about it, they make sense.

One of the points brought up was the military is not a social club, or
a place to promote social understanding. It is  a group of fighting men
that work as a team and take orders.

If any of you have heard others tell of the drill sergeant's introductory
speech. "I'm your DI, xxxxxx. From now on, I am everything to you. I'm
your mother, I'm your father, I'm your best friend and I'm your worst
enemy. I'm even your girlfriend, but don't try to @@@@ with me. I'll tell
you when to get up, when to lie down, when to stand, when to sit...." I
can already see some tough DI having a problem telling a bunch of gays
that he was their girlfriend. They would probably all get a grin on their
face...

So, given this type of environment, the general said that after hours,
sooner or later they are going to be "off duty" and in some of these towns
you mentioned holding hands, men kissing men, perhaps going into the same
places you were talking about. They are going to get called all sorts of
names and a fight will ensue. The commanders, instead of working on what
they should be working on will be working on keeping the troops in line.

A Navy Seal called Rush Limbaugh's show last night, said he wanted to be
a Seal since he was 10, but if they came in, he was out the first chance
he got. He also thought that the number enlisting would drop dramatically
of those who were straight.

You have a point in that this is not right, but many of these people are
not Christian. We talk "You can't force Christianity in public schools
or tell or make people believe this or that." but we are more than willing
to force non-Christians to accept gays, showering with them, sleeping
in the same room with them, and working side by side.

I guess we'll all find out as time goes on. It might be if they try it
they will assign a military base to them and keep them separate from the
rest, but what will be the spread of disease, the moral implications of
these nice people having a day off and going downtown to the local area
where you might have every other couple of the same sex, holding hands
and perhaps kissing, etc. Will any town be willing to host such a
"project" or experiment. Is the military the proper place to do
something like this? Do we then "force" the town to accept this behavior
as well? How long until the "married" ones can have their "spouse" on
barracks?

And, if HIV is grounds for dismissal, how long will they last? I'm not
saying they are all bad, but do we also think a "co-ed" base is a good
idea? I mean with "co-ed" showers, sleeping quarters, etc.?

God have mercy.

Watching and waiting,
Maks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU