From: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals should be allowed into the military
Organization: Summit NJ
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:24:52 GMT

Michael Lax writes:
>David Sternlight wrote:

>: I have not seen a more inflammatory and positional phrase than
>: "bigoted and hateful notion that gays should be discriminated against"
>: in a long time. What's more, it's grossly inaccurate.  The issue is
>: one of appropriateness. Some feel that homosexuals can function well
>: and without added friction in the military.  Others do not. The issue
>: is not unlike one of whether men and women should sleep in joint open
>: barracks (not private rooms) in the military.
>: 
>: Neither bigotry, hatefulness, nor discrimination are involved. What
>: is involved is whether the military can efficiently carry out their
>: primary function if people, some of whom are sexually interested in
>: others, sleep and live in communal areas and use communal showers and
>: toilets with those others.

>"Grossly inaccurate"?  Take out "sexual orientation" and put in
>religion, then take out "gay and lesbian" and put in Jewish.  How
>would _you_ feel?  Would you still say that it wasn't bigotted?
>Would you still say it wasn't motivated by hate?  Would you find the
>euphemisms ("efficiency", etc.) as tolerable?  You are saying that it
>is not bigoted to base a policy on lies and distorted perceptions.  You
>are saying it is not hateful to hurt people because you feel 
>uncomfortable around them.  And you are saying it is not discrimination
>to deny rights to a group of people.  _VERY_ curious. 

I don't believe that these "substitution" analogies prove anything.  I
mean, I can take out "homosexual", "gay and lesbian", and "sexual
orientation" and substitute "occasional cocaine users".  At that point,
there is nothing discriminatory about it;  one potentially risky or 
anti-social class of people was substituted for another, and the
exclusion makes perfect sense.  As far as "denying rights", what's
the denial-  you use cocaine, you're out; you dry out, you can join. 
Just substitute "choice of sex partners" for "cocaine users".

Since this is SCJ, I'll draw another analogy.  All of the Jews on this
net know, or should know, that the only acceptable sex partner is one's
legal, Jewish, spouse.  All of us had, or have, the choice of anyone
else on this planet as our sex partner(s), but we know that the only
set that we can actually choose from are those Jews of the opposite sex
who are not close relatives.  We know that many people on this net
don't think that this part of God's Law applies to them, but we also
know that many people on this net did restrict their choice of spouse
in accordance with God's Law; and in this latter case, our brains may have
overrode our glands, and we chose our sex partners in accordance with
the criteria that God established for us, because we knew that any
other choice was simply wrong and not even an option.

Actually the issues of gays in the military is probably only a subset
of a bigger issue; specifically, sexual conduct in general.  Any
policies on immoral sex (that is, sex outside of marriage) need to
be uniform across all types of sex.  One man trying to "hit" on another
is no more wrong that the Tailhook(?) convention assaults on female
officers in Las Vegas about a year ago.
-- 
Stan Krieger                 All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories     if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
smk@usl.com