From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:19:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.190640.1058@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@prime.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.225152.23861@anasazi.com>, 
>briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec17.202638.21289@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>> The one reason why many do not want gays in the military, and I for one
>> agree on the prohibition, 
>
>Gee by looking where you are posting from, why don't I find this a
>surprise?  You are the third poster from Anasazi to say this.  Just
>what is Anasazi?  If I recall correctly, Anasazi means "ancient ones" or
>"the ones who came before".  I'm beginning to think that Anasazi is some
>archaeological dig that has written software to transfer ancient
>cultural relics into modern day posts.  Your post is loaded with
>cultural artifacts of a past era.

Just as Mao believed that all previous human history, knodledge and morals
were irrelevant and they should be swept away in a little hoe-down called
the Cultural Revolution.  Is this what you're saying is that prior cultural
from the past is now irrelevant?

Hardly.  

>
>> is fear.   But not of sexual passes, or rape,
>> most soldiers ought to be able to defend themselves.  The fear is of
>> failure.  Will this guy next to me in the foxhole lose it when the shit
>> hits the fan?  A straight soldier is really afraid guy that an admittedly 
>> gay soldier will let him and every one else down.  That is the question that 
>> will go through each soldier's mind if they are forced to accept gays.
>
>Since this fear you expressed here has no basis in fact you are
>talking about an irrational fear.  Persistent illogical fears are termed
>phobias.

Next time, try finish reading before you see red.  I wasn't talking about
homophobia (which seems to be the gay activists equivalent to Pinko from
the McCarthy era), but rather performance fear.  That of the the straight
soldier implicitly fearful that a gay soldier will break under pressure and
not perform his duty, ergo getting people kiled.

And speaking of irrational fears, suppose for the sake of argument
most/many soldiers are homophobic.  What do you propose should be be done?
Discharge?  Ignore them?  Reeducation?  For any Psychology experts (not
amateurs) what is the standard treatment method for Phobias?

>> Many gays say that it is a life-style choice.  Some activists are saying
>> its biological, that they have no choice in being gay or straight.  There
>> is some gay doctor in the UK that thinks he has isolated a gene that causes
>> homosexuality.  Personally, I have idea which is right, maybe both, maybe
>> neither.  But look at what this says to a straight soldier who might have
>> to rely on a gay soldier for his life.
>> 
>> If it is a choice, then it seems like a gay doesn't have sufficient
>> will-power to overcome his sexual urges to go straight, 
>
>You are assuming that a gay man wants to become straight.  

The straight soldier usually does.

>> which is the natural sexual choice.  
>
>Most homosexuals say that their sexual orientation feels natural to
>them.  If you think it is a choice, what do you think leads to this
>choice?  

I didn't say I did think it was by choice.  A gay couple I know were both
once married and have had kids.  But neither could handle it and eventually 
divorced their wives.  Each felt compelled (personally) to leave the straight
life and return to a gay life.  That they had no freewill in the matter.  To
me, this sounds more biological than a question of willpower.  I have heard
other ancedotal stories the other way, that supported a strictly choice
argument.  I have no idea one way or the other.

But I'm not an 18 year old kid in boot camp looking to be all he can be,
while the guy next to him says that he is gay.

>
>> If true, then will he have sufficient will-power to 
>> overcome his fear amidst the horror and destruction of a battle-field and do 
>> his job?  I think not.
>
>There is *no* correlation between will power and sexual orientation. 

Prove it.  You cannot prove there isn't, just as I cannot prove there is.
Facts actually mean very little in this argument, because what we're really
dealing with is the perceptions of nearly 2 million active duty personal.
Their thoughts, their perceptions, their education, social, and moral
backgrounds.  Not yours, mine, not that of the gay community, the hetro 
community or the religious community.

>Also, if you are talking will power what about your the straight
>phobic soldier you described?  If they don't have the will power to
>overcome their phobia, will they have the will power to overcome the
>fear amidst the battlefield?

You applied phobic, as in a homophobic context, to the soldier.  I didn
not.  I'm talking about the soldier who is phobic about dying on the 
battlefield and so must trust his fellow soldier to keep him alive.

And yes most soldiers will do their job, they will over come their fear.
However, the strongest mechanism the military stresses to overcome that
fear is "Remember, you've got to do your job for your buddies.  Not for God, 
not for country, but for the guy in the foxhole next to you."  to paraphrase 
many a general from ancient to modern.  When two men share that level of
commitment to one another, often stronger than many marriages, an openly
homosexual preference by one of the soldiers can put a strain so heavy on
the relationship, as to destroy the trust that is needed.

What I'm asking you to do is put yourself into the context of the average
member of the armed services.  Probably a High School degree, no college,
would like to some day.  If he is white, probably a rural background.
Farm, football, church on Sundays, a girl he likes a year behind him in
school.  If he's black, probably from the city.  Bright lights, cars, out
with the guys on Saturday night, singing in the choir on Sundays, a little
sister he's overly protective of, but she's got a wild streak.  If he's 
hispanic, often the same.  Put yourself in their shoes, see how they were
brought up, what it was like in their family, friends, neighborhoods.  Look
at what forces shaped them and will motivate their actions.  What forces
motivated them to join the armed forces?  What makes them want to stay?  

As other people have stated, homosexuality is guessed to run from 3% to
maybe 10%.  Therefore these other stereaotypical types I've alluded to
above are the majority of people in the armed services.  Though I didn't
describe women, they are clearly a sizable portion.  If you can walk a mile
in their shoes, understand their motivations, then I think you can get a
better idea of the problems faced with the idea of allowing open
homosexuals in the military.

The problem is not done justice by such simplistic terms as homophobe,
irrational fears, reeducation, etc.  And to propose that it does, I submit,
evinces a clear design to push through an agenda for the agenda's sake,
irrespective of the costs involved.  While more thoughtful proponents would
seek to address all issues in a cautious manner that understands you are
dealing with human beings, not robots that can simply programmed as the
engineers see fit.


>
>> If it is biological, then what other biological deficincies might a gay
>> soldier have?  
>
>This is a very value latent comment.  

Latent to what?

>If it is biological why do you
>label homosexuality a deficiency?  

Given the possible percentages of homosexuality, it is a very small portion
of the population.  Therefore, it is not biologically the norm.  Without
freewill, or advanced technology, a strictly homosexual existence cannot
propagate.  From a Darwinistic standpoint, it is a dead-end condition and
therefore deficient.  

However, a bisexual existence has been shown to have certain biological and 
social advantages in the wild.  Specifically in Bonobos, a cousin of the 
Chimpanzee.  The society is matriarchal, promiscuity abounds, lesbianism and 
homosexuality is frequent.  However, our society more closely resembles
that of Chimpanzees, particularly in the patriarchial domination, violence
and frequent territorial clashes.

Until our society more closely resembles that of Bonobos instead of
Chimpanzees, homosexuality will continue to be viewed as deficient by the
majority.  This societal defieciency should not in any way prevent a
tolerant view of homosexuality, for such tolerance is one the things that 
separates humanity from the beasts.

>Deficient of what?  Are other
>biological traits that occur randomly throughout all humans also
>deficincies?  What about left-handedness?
>
>> Deficiencis that may or may not prevent him fulfilling his job.  
>
>Name one.   
>
>Couldn't huh?  Better throw this one on the phobia pile too.

Boy, what, a, clever, trick, that, was, of, yours.  Got, me, there.

If it is bioligical, it manifests itself in behaviour.  No while for a
long time left-handedness was thought to have behaviour origin, science
eventually proved it wrong, and that there was no deficiency.  Not until
such proof came along were the majority of people convinced.  Ancedotal
evidence was simply not enough to change societies views.

When the traditional view of gays is of limp-wristed panty waists--a view
Hollywood has propagated and only now seeks to redress, see the series
Brothers--guys in drag (just watch the gay pride parade in San Francisco
each July), it is going to be pretty difficult to convince the avergage
dog-face that he can trust the gay guy next to him.  In the back of that
soldier's mind, he will wonder "Is he going to freak when the shells start
coming in?  Throw on a dress or something?  I better cover my own ass."  

Most people don't distinguish between gays that are transvestites, butch
(wear the leather), efeminent, or just happen to have a gay life with
another male.  To most people, gay is gay, and the image conjured up is of
an efemient male, or an overweight female with short hair for whom makeup
wouldn't help.  Like it or not, whether its truthful or not, that is the
stereotype.  Change the stereotype, and you change people's views.

Speaking of hollywood for a moment.  Last night a stupid movie was on called
Condition Critical, about a doctor infecting and killing hookers.  A doctor
from the CDC walks the streets of Hollywood trying to find information on
the hookers.  He visits a leather bar, and it looks like they production
company shot in a real leather bar.  There was the obligatory collection of
guys in leather plus transvestites.  One of which comes up the female
doctor, orders a drink, and then comments to the doctor on what a great
pair of pumps she's wearing, then winks.  Later, it is demonstrated that
good looking lab assistent is also gay, even though he is the target of a
predatory female doctor.

Three different views of the gay life.  An openly gay soldier could be anyone
of these three lifestyles.  While the lab assistant may be easily accepted
by fellow soldiers, the other two are clearly predatory and submissive.
Both would constitute major problems in morale, discipline and unit
cohension for the military.  What to do?  Make exceptions dependant on the
type of gay lifestyle?

>
>> Do I want to take chance and bet my life on it?  I think not.
>
>Well we are back to your phobia again.  Sorry but it's your problem not
>society's.  If you can't overcome your fear, stay home.

As a member of the military, you don't have a choice to "stay home."  You
do what your ordered, and if you don't, its into the stockade.  And once
again, I'm not afraid of the homosexual life.  The fear is that the
homosexual won't do his job.

>
>> The opinions and feelings of straight soldiers are extremely important when
>> deciding about gays in the military.  
>
>The opinions and feelings of gay soldiers are extremely important when
>deciding about gays in the military.  

At the expense of the majority of our fighting force?  For maybe 3-10% of
the possible recruitment population, of which a smaller percentage will
make it through?  I don't think so.  There is such a thing called Morale in
the military, and the military goes to great length to keep its mew and
women and their Morale high.  The feelings of gays, inside and especially
outside the military is NOT a complelling reason to destroy the morale of
the majority of the personnally currently serving.

>
>> It is easy to say, "Well, they're the
>> bigots and homophobes for not treating gays equally."  In fact, whether or
>> not they are bigots or homophobes is immatterial.  The real question is can
>> a straight soldier "learn"--not forced just by Executive Order--to trust
>> the gay soldier next to him.  If you did try to force a soldier to trust
>> openly gay soldiers, you would see a majority of the soldiers leave ASAP, 
>> gutting of our national defence capability.  
>
>Translation (stubborn whine):  If you hold me accountable for my
>actions and insist I behave as an adult, I'm leaving.

Translation:  If you try to Reeducate me into accepting your
socio/political agenda for which I did not agree to when I signed over my
rights to the Military, I'm out of here.  I don't need this shit anymore.

>
>> They just wouldn't want to
>> stake their lives on it.  Is such a gutting of our defense forces worth
>> fulfilling a political promise for what is clearly minor minority.
>
>Translation (childish whine):  If you make me, I'm leaving and then
>you'll really be sorry.  You'll see.

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.  If someone turned
around and proved to me that women are clearly superior soldiers in every
respect to males, then I'd say ban men from joining the armed forces if it
meant having the best armed services we could have.  That, above all else
is the most important thing.

>
>> Afterall, serving in the military is a privilege, not a right, as well as a
>> duty in times of national emergency.
>
>Translation (tired and overused whine): I can't think of any rational
>argument so I'll repeat something I've hear a million times and go for
>the *Big Emotional* appeal.

Translation:  I want to reegineer American society in my image and
absolutely nothing is more important than that, including defense of our
National Interests.

>> To force a openly gay soldier into the midst of a squad would be no
>> different then shoving a woman onto that group of tankers.  
>
>What!?

To bad you editted away the rest of my post, then it wouldn't have gone
over your head.

>
>> The level of
>> ridicule and derision that a gay soldier would suffer would be extensive.  
>
>It's probably just the bad makeup and the dress.

They wouldn't trust her.  And it would severly weaken the units spirit.

>
>> And again, it's easy to say "Well, they could report such hazing to their
>> superior officer."  To the squad, that would just tell them that if the
>> gays--and it would be applied to all gays--can't handle hazing without
>> crying to mommy, there is no way they can handle themselves when the
>> bullets fly.  
>
>You make it sound like all gays are emotional heaps who can't stand up
>for themselves.  Don't you imagine that a gay man that has made it all
>the way to a tanker unit has already heard all of the hazing you can
>imagine and learned to handle it long ago?

Do you know what a sheeting is?  It's when you asleep, guys in the unit
sneak up and through a sheet over the top of you, holding you in your bed,
and covering your face you can't see them.  They then proceed to beat the
shit out of you, a pillow muffles the cries.  It's usually done when
someone isn't holding his own in the unit.  It's a motivator the unit uses
to maintain discipline.  It clearly is a violation of military law, but it
happens.  Everywhere an openly gay soldier is put, this is what potentially
awaits him.  I'm not trying to justify it, just trying to educate you on
reality.

>
>> To a soldier, there is nothing worse than a coward.  Every soldier is
>> scared, sometimes literally shitless, but he NEVER, EVER lets that fear
>> paralyze him from action, especially if such action separates his buddies
>> from life and death.  A coward does let such fear paralyze him, a coward
>> does run when things get tough, a coward does let down his buddies.  And
>> there is absolutely nothing more terrifying war.  No matter what kind of a 
>> hazing a gay soldier could receive, real war is 10 times worse.
>
>Sounds like an argument for more gay soldiers.  He's endured all those
>years of hazing.  It strengthened his character.  Yet, he still
>wants to serve his country.  It's turned him into this bitchin' mean
>fighting machine and now he's ready for real war.

If he did endure it, it was in private.  If it was known he was gay,
usually an officer, it was kept private.  If he was enlisted, he was
discharged.  I don't know of any examples, but I think you would have a real
problem showing an openly gay soldier that made it through boot.  Closet
gay, no question they made it and excelled in the armed forces, at least
some did, not all.


>> So don't think that legislated solutions about better sexual harassment
>> laws in the military, better reporting, etc are going to work to stop gays
>> from seducing 18 year old boys, or gays having the shit kicked out them by
>> 10 200+ lbs men with to much testosterone.  
>
>Translation:  Boys will be boys.

True, especially rowdy boys looking to be macho.

>> Because to cry and whine over
>> bahaviour like this just means you can't hack it when the balloon goes up.
>
>You seem to be the one that is crying and whining here.

Well it's just too bad you can't open open yours and see the real world.
Instead you like your fantasyland.  I've had a fair amount of involvement
with the military over the years.  I've known a lot of gays, a couple who
were even in the military, one highly decorated.  Would he ever come out
and say he was, hell no.  He just did his job, and kept his private life
private.

Until you can convince me that you know more about military psychology than
me, and can see both sides of the issue, then you're just dreaming to think
gays can be integrated into the military overnight and the armed forces not
suffer a serious reduction in ability.

>
>> Lastly, I'm not saying that I personnally agree with this mentality,
>> promote it, or am abhorred by it.   Only that this is the way things really
>> are, and have been for thousands of years.  
>
>History is full of lots of stories of injustice.  You have just given
>us one.  Now that we've identified the injustice, looks like it's time
>to chart a new course and set a new standard for the next thousands of
>years.

Chart a new course, yes.  Arrive overnight, no.  Set a new standard, whose 
standard?  Yours, mine, Queer Nation, Pat Robertson?  It's a bit a 
presumptious to believe that you or I have all the answers to the world's
injustices.  And just as it would be wrong for me to dictate to you my
moral and religious belief, why should I be forced to accept yours?

>> Look how long it took to
>> integrate blacks into the military, and even then, the level of abuse blacks
>> were subjected to and to a point tolerated is staggering.  Because to cry out 
>> meant they weren't tough enough.  Like it or not, that's the way it was, and 
>> is.  The movie Taps has a poignent example of this.
>
>Well, let's see.  I'd guess it took a couple of years after the ban
>was lifted for blacks to integrate into the military and another 40
>years for a black to lead the military.  Not really very long compared
>to thousands of years.

Blacks were segregated in the military for nearly a 100 years before
integration.  That had a long and proud history of all black units in armed
services to show as example they were just as capable as whites.  And after
all that, it still took them 40 to reach CJCS.  How can you think it would
take gays any less time, especially given the lack of unit history.

>
>> But like all things, if it is wrong, it will not stand in the face of time.
>> Perhaps when this age passes into another, gay soldier will have the
>> opportunity to earn the trust of straight soldiers, just as women are still
>> trying to earn the trust of male soldiers, and as black soldiers DID earn
>> the trust of white soldiers.  It takes time.  
>
>Just what do gays have to do to earn the trust of straight soldiers? 
>They've been in the military since the beginning of the military. 
>They've died in battle right along side their straight brothers.  They
>served their country proudly.  What would do you suggest they do
>differently?

These are good questions, and your facts are correct.  The difference is
being openly gay, versus closet.  There is no tradition of that.  So what
would I suggest.
	1)	Gays be given honorable discharges, not general, not
dishonorable.  Change the stigma of being gay to the existing military.
	2)	A general program of tolerance to those that are different.
Historically the military has said "Kill the enemy, and they are the
enemy!"  Not so anymore.  The modern American soldier is the most schooled
there has ever been, and no reason to see that change.  In Vietnam 19% of
all Marines were married, today it's over 60%.  You can't get in the Air
Force without a high school diploma.  Today's soldiers are taught to "think
on their feet." to quote the Commander of CENTCOM.  Clearly, just as the
navy is teaching sailors that women must be treated equally, regardless of
personal feeling, so too can soldiers be eventually taught the same about
gays.  But if sailors and aviators could treat their fellow women sailors
and aviators the way they did at Tailhook, there is a long way to go before
gay's could be accepted as equals.
	3)	At some point in the future, I would guess 5 years, allow
gays to serve in strict non-combat roles.  That is non-field positions.  A
very small number of slots but a start.
	4)	At some later point, probably 10 years, allow gays into
combat service/combat support roles.  In the AirLandSea 2000, the
distinction between combat and non combat will be even more blurred, but
clearly there is a difference between a grunt in an AFV blasting tanks, and
guy back at the depot making sure the water is pure.
	5)	Probably 20 years from now, allow gays in the direct combat
role.  I don't like the idea of segregated units, but such units could be
formed sooner, and provide direct evidence that gays are just as capable as
straights.

You asked for a plan.  Now how about yours.

>
>> And no amount of legislation
>> or executive orders can automatically change people over night.
>
>No one has said that people would change overnight.  

But it most activists want it to happen overnight.

>But most big
>social changes that ended discrimination did start with legislation
>and executive orders.

We're not talking about social changes, were talking about military
changes.  We're not talking about discrimination of minorities or religion,
both of which are protected by the constitution, we're talking sexual
preference.  Why the need to always equate the two?

>
>> Oh, and for the record, I have gay friends, 
>
>Oh, gawd.  Here it comes.  Another "I am not a homophobe speech".
>
>> [I] have been approached by gay males--turned them down of course-
>
>But of course.
>
>> -and didn't bash their heads in.  
>
>You wear this like a badge.  Like you are proud of it.  Like it makes
>you a better.  Like it makes all the drivel you posted "OK", cause
>you're such a swell guy.  Sorry, it doesn't fly.  All it says is that
>you reacted in a non-violent situation in a non-violent way.  Not
>bashing in someone's head, makes you civil and nothing more.  You
>don't get any badges or merit points for it.

Yeah, I am proud of it.  Most guys I grew up would have kicked their (gay)
ass up won side of the street and down the other.  My last two years of
high school I practically live in the gym.  I should have been your
stereotypical gay basher.  But I grew beyond it and learned to tolerate their 
lifestyle without being judgemental about its good or evil.  And I've heard 
all the speeches that anyone that is violently opposed to gays is latently 
homosexual, overcompensating for their latent feelings.  And just like combat, 
you never know how you're going to act until it happens.  Until one night, 
sitting at a bar a guy starts rubbing your leg.  Do you yell and scream?  
Do you punch him in the mouth?  Do you walk away?  I just turned to him and 
"Sorry, not my style." But I stayed, talked, bought him another beer.  He 
tried a couple of times more, it just doesn't interest me.

I am very proud that I can tolerate people that are different me,
regardless of who they are or what they do.  And if you don't think such
civilized behaviour should be encouraged, how do you expect the opposite to
ever be discouraged?

>
>> The gay lifestyle simply has no interest to me.  
>
>I don't recall anyone asking what interested you.
>
>> So no one try the homophobe bit on me.  
>
>Whatcha gunna do, bash someone's head in?

I really pity you.  Your mind is so tightly wound that either all are for the
gay life style or against it, that you completely ostracize the middle.
You try to dismiss my position as homophobic simply because it might erode
your own.  And like the regigious extremist who shouts on high his faith,
less he not be convince himself of his own dogma, you too must eradicate
any position not fitted nicely within the confines of your dogma.  Truth
being the first victim of all dogmas.


>
>> In the civilian world, I don't really care what gays do.  A gay man
>> could be high school gym teacher for all I cared, as long as he didn't try
>> to influence the sexual choices of his students 
>
>So you think sexual choices can be influenced?

There is strong evidence to indicate.  I honestly don't know.  One coworker
had been repeatedly sexually molested as a teenager (~14), he had penchant
for young men (~18-22), but occasionally younger.  He would sometimes joke
about seeing cubscouts walking home.  Distasteful, but generally harmless.
There is strong ancedotal evidence for both personal choice, and
biological.  Mayber either or, maybe both.  I do not know.

>
>> (that is espousing a gay
>> lifestyle as equal or superior to a hetro, I didn't give my school
>> permission for such curriculum, and he damn well better not do it on his
>> own)  
>
>If you don't care, you wouldn't care.  Sounds to me like you do care.

Any sex-ed beyond biological reproduction, is my responsibility.  That is
school can teach the kid about eggs, sperm, condoms and the pill, but it's
my job to teach the kid about love, relationships, when to have sex, why,
etc.

>> To me, a gay teacher seducing a student is just as abhorrent as a
>> straight teacher seducing a student of the opposite sex.
>
>Agreed.  
>
>> But when it comes to military, we're not talking about civilians with
>> uniforms, were talking about a whole different world.  Where death is quick
>> and violent, where people pay for mistakes with their lives.  There were
>> 700 in the line of dutys deaths last year for the DoD.  Name another
>> business of any size lists employee deaths as part of its annual report.  And 
>> while gays may not have to get along with their co-workers, in the military 
>> lives depend on everyone working together.
>
>You've never offered any argument why gays can't work as part of a
>team.  Doesn't professionalism require that both straight and gays do
>get along with their co-workers?  Getting along with co-workers and
>being a team player has been on every review form I've ever filled
>out.

Absolutely.  The problem is not in the gay's professionalism, but in the
existing military.  If women still have problems, gays will to.  But unlike
womens or black, the choice or biological argument, along with predatory
and submissive gays, plus "regular gays" for lack of a better term, severly
complicate the issue.  Instead of gay activists say, "We need a law."  How
about "We need a program for equal acceptance."  

>
>> I'm sorry, but this is a situation where clearly the costs out wiegh the
>> benefits (which as yet I haven't heard anyone address).
>
>Which costs and which benefits?  I've previously posted how much money
>the military spends a year replacing the 1500 personnel that are
>removed for homosexuality.  I haven't seen any cost analysis of what
>it would cost to end the ban.  It's probably because ending the ban
>would be a net economic gain for the country.

I have not seen these numbers.  Could you please repost, or e-mail if
everyone is tired of them.

Until someone performs a study interview active duty personnel to determine
there action given a repeal on gays, I have no numbers to offer.  Only that
interviews, and people I know said that would be it, and they would get out
at the first opportunity.  Numbers, I don't have.  But suppose its 1%, that's
about 17,000 personal (1.7 million active).  That's the bottom line.



>
>Jim


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12522 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10944 alt.politics.clinton:19262 alt.politics.bush:15100 alt.politics.homosexuality:8589