From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:38:56 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec9.150848.24614@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
john@anasazi.com writes:
>]Slavery used to be a "cultural norm".  But it was wrong, and the abolition
>]of slavery was right, despite the discomfort that it caused the oppressor
>]group.  After slavery, Jim Crow laws were a "cultural norm".  Some whites
>Now why didn't I think of this? Why, it's obvious that slavery and Jim
>Crow laws are so closely related to having gays in the military. That's
>why it keeps coming up. Sigh.

The only =difference= that has been presented is based on the fact that the
"repulsion" is based on a psychological (sexual) rather than a physical
(racial) difference between people.  In both cases, people are being
discriminated against because of the way others think about them.  

The reasons that people use to justify their bigotries are unlikely to have
anything to do with the reasons why they should abandon them.  Perhaps that
is the chasm of difference between the two issues that holds your attention.

>So, once again, you are willing to disrupt the military, and end peoples'
>careers, for your social engineering. 

Let us not forget that the military already ends peoples careers based on
this obsolete stereotype.  And if the military can't cope with such a
trivial disruption as ceasing to persecute gays, then God help us if they
ever get into another =real= war.  In war, disruption is the rule, not the
exception.

>It has been mentioned many times on
>this thread, and ignored by so many progaysinmilitary types, that the
>proper analogy has to do with women in the military, not blacks. 

In some ways, yes...in others, no.   The reasons being put forward for
excluding gays are much more similar to (and just as invalid as) those used
to exclude blacks.  The difficulties inherent in correcting the problem are,
indeed, more similar to the admission of women.  Once we overcome the
reasons for the discrimination, =then= we should address the difficulties of
implementation.

But, I hear you say, the difficulties =are= the reasons.  Nobody is saying
that it will be easy, or without shortterm impact.  However, if the
military's sole reason for perpetuating this archaic prejudice is that it
won't be easy, then (...oops, this is how I ended my other paragraph).

>Note
>that the military had to make substantial changes in order to accomodate
>women, but still does not grant them "equal rights"  for example, to
>serve in ground combat.  Why can't you compare the situation to that. 

Probably because many feel, as I do, that there are women as qualified
(sometimes =more= qualified) to be ground combatants as many who currently
so serve.  However, they are excluded =solely= because they are women.  For
example, in spite of the Air Force's own findings that women appear to make
better combat fighter pilots, they are still completely excluded from that
duty.  So don't try to justify one injustice by citing another.

>The
>military, under pressure, admitted women into many more areas than they
>used to serve in. In order to do so, they suffered additional expenditures,
>and documented (in the gulf war) loss of efficiency. 

There were both documented losses and improvements in efficiency
attributable to the presence of women.  When presented with =any= new and
different resource, it is not the least bit surprising that they would not
immediately be able to put it to the best possible use and integrate it into
the system perfectly.  Eventually, they will, unless we allow them to to
continue to operate based on prejudice rather than reality.

>Now you want to make
>an even more radical change? And compare it to civil rights? If you want
>to do it, why not address the consequences, instead of continuing to spout
>"equal rights?" 

The predicted consequences have been =repeatedly= addressed and reasonably
dealt with, in this forum and elsewhere.

>Why not address the question that if we provide separate
>sleeping and showering quarters for women, we should also do it for gays?

Sigh.  OK, one more time.  Any ONE of the following should be sufficient to
counter that contention: 1) Gays and straights have =always= shared the same
quarters and showers with no ill effects.  2) As soon as enough straights
realize that gays are not a threat, then nobody will =care= if they are
showering together.  3) Even the genders are separated only as a
(unnecessary, in my opinion) concession to social morays.  If necessity
dictated then that custom could and would be dropped with no negative
reprecussions (probably even some surprisingly positive ones, in terms of
morale and comraderie).

>Nice of you to recognize that most folks have the freedom to associate with
>whom they want. To bad you don't realize that soldiers, whom we pay to
>little and whom we ask to sacrifice their lives for us, do NOT have that
>freedom. But you don't mind.... YOU are going to just force the living
>with gays on those who do join the army. 

But that is =precisely= the point.  In the military, racists are forced to
associate with other races and nice people are forced to associate with
flaming a**holes.  I would also mention that misogynists and sexists are
forced to associate with women, but you don't see how this relates to the
issue, so I won't.  (<grin>)  So, why make a special case for people who
don't like associating with gays?

>Can't you see that the "forcing"
>occurs with or without gays in the military? In one case, we force the
>gays to stay out, while in another case we force the nongays to
>sleep and fight with the gays. In either case, there is a violation of
>preferences. It isn't as simple or as one sided as you would make it!

To cater specifically to those who find gays offensive or invasive is about
as one sided as I can imagine.

>By the way, I assume you believe that the government has the right to
>ban all abortions, since only a "privacy" right has allowed the court
>to prevent that, and you obviously don't give a damn about privacy.

THERE'S an Olympic calibre leap of logic, if I ever saw one.  Start a new
thread if you want to pursue that one!  I'd be delighted!

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh