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:
Summary: The ancient ones speak again
Date: 19 Dec 92 03:06:40 GMT
Reply-To: jhb@prime.com
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton, alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: -

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.

> 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.

> 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.  

> 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?  

> 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. 
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?

> If it is biological, then what other biological deficincies might a gay
> soldier have?  

This is a very value latent comment.  If it is biological why do you
label homosexuality a deficiency?  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.

> 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.

> 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.  

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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!?

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

> And no amount of legislation
> or executive orders can automatically change people over night.

No one has said that people would change overnight.  But most big
social changes that ended discrimination did start with legislation
and executive orders.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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?

> (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.

> 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.

> 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.

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh