From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:03:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.134437.25502@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.225152.23861@anasazi.com> Brian Douglass,
>briand@anasazi.com writes:
>>The one reason why many do not want gays in the military, and I for one
>>agree on the prohibition, 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.
>
>This implies a belief that homosexuality implies cowardice.  It was once
>widely believed that blacks were cowardly.  The misapprehension about
>gays will evaporate as quickly as that against blacks.

It took decades for it to evaporate.  Patton directly requested that black
armor unit be assigned to 3rd Army in WWII.  The unit, whose designation I
forgot, distinguished itself brilliantly in every mission it was assigned.
And it was assigned the worse, the suicide missions.  Had the highest
casualty rates.  Patton himself, I regret to say, wrote that he considered
the black soldiers to be inferior to the white soldiers, even after the
black unit's great work.  Black soldiers have been part of the US military
since the civil war, and did not truly obtain integration and equal status
until the 60s and 70s.  So, yes it will evaporate as quickly if not quicker
than black soldier, and that was over 100 years.

Also, don't think I'm saying that homosexuals are implicitly cowards.  I'm
instead trying to put you, the reader inside the head of an 18 year old
recruit, probably from a lower middle to low income background that is
being told by a drill sergeant that he is a wimp, a pansy, a moma's boy and
that when he comes out of boot camp, he's going to be a lean-mean-killing
machine, warrior-god, or any other euphimism a sergeant likes to describe
himself by.  After all that, how is that 18 year-old going to view an open
homosexual?

>
>>If it is a choice, then it seems like a gay doesn't have sufficient
>>willpower to overcome his sexual urges to go straight, which is the
>>natural sexual choice.  If true, then will he have sufficient willpower
>to 
>>overcome his fear amidst the horror and destruction of a battlefield
>and do 
>>his job?  I think not.
>
>There are too many flawed assumptions in this argument to even =try= to
>address in a structured manner.  Since I believe that sexual orientation
>is, by definition, =not= a choice, I will focus on the other half of this
>attempted Catch 22.

Well, that's your problem.  I'll reiterate if not clear enough for you.
Everyone in the military is a soldier.  They are a cook, a pilot, tank
commander etc second.  They are trained to kill.  They are also trained to
NEVER let down their buddies.  They work as a unit to maximize their
firepower.  They WILL be called upon to do things they don't want to do,
are unpleasant.  Hell, they may even be asked to do something that will
likely get themself killed.  That's a soldier's lot.  When a soldier is
called upon to do something that may get himself killed, will he have the
will power to choke down his fear, and get on with the job?  Personally, I
think a properly trained gay soldier stands as much chance to get the job
done as a straight soldier.  But I'm much better educated and older than
the average soldier.  Will he?  Will that 18 year old I described above
think so?  I doubt it.  Most senior military officers also doubt that the
18 year old staight will believe in the 18 year old gay.  It's all about
trust, which is earned, not legislated.

>
>>If it is biological, then what other biological deficincies might a gay
>>soldier have?  Deficiencis that may or may not prevent him fulfilling his
>>job.  Do I want to take chance and bet my life on it?  I think not.
>
>Implicit in this argument is the idea that, if a person has one
>"biological deficiency" that is unrelated to their ability to perform,

Says you.  I've been flying airplanes since I was kid and have been
described as a natural born pilot.  But because I wear glasses the Air
Force, Navy, and Army said I can't be pilot.   Obviously their opinion has
more weight than mine or yours.

>then that person =may= have others that =do= impact their performance. 

If the DoD decides (and they have) that homosexuality impacts performance,
then there may be others that impact.

>Each person in the world is equally "likely" to have "deficiencies".  We
>all have some... nobody is perfect.  

That's right, and the DoD and each service defines a standard that each
recruit must meet.  They have defined homosexuality as deficiency that
exempts someone from service.

>Homosexuality is no more an indicator of ability to perform than is 
>premature baldness.  

This is your opinion.  It is the opinion of almost all senior DoD officers
that homosexuality is an indicator.  Who has more experience to judge?

>This, of course, does not even address the unsupported assumption that
>homosexuality is a "deficiency" to begin with.

The DoD, JCS, as well as various retired officers have offered varying
amounts of information to support their position, just as gay activists
have.  Each side feels that have more than ample support for their
assumptions.

>>The opinions and feelings of straight 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 Orderto 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.  They just wouldn't want to
>>stake their lives on it.  Is such a gutting of our defence forces worth
>>fulfilling a political promise for what is clearly minor minority.
>>Afterall, serving in the military is a privilege, not a right, as well
>as a
>>duty in times of national emergency.
>
>The feelings of straight soldiers are =exactly= as important with regard
>to admitting gays as are the feelings of racist soldiers with regards to
>admitting blacks (or hispanics, or orientals, or whatever).

Your tactic here is to imply that straight soldiers are as bad as racist
soldiers (straight to gays is as racists to blacks).  A trite argument to
dismiss the feelings and concerns of straight soldiers in respect to gays.
While this whole discussion is about gay's feelings and concerns about
being denied the opportunity for military service.  Quite hypocritical.

>
>>Clearly the Sergeant was the exception, but because of
>>life experiences he felt comfortable in trusting a woman.  The other
>>soldiers, in their early twenties didn't have such life experiences to
>make
>>their decisions by.
>

I see you started off by deleting a section of my response in order to
better support you argument.  This way the reader only gets your censored
view of my statement instead of the full gist.  Must I now copyright my
postings and forbid all editting in their propagation in order to cow your
rudeness?  To shame.

>This suggests that the "inexperienced" soldiers' experience is more
>worthy of enforcing at a policy level than that of the Sargent.

No, but it does because of your hack job.  What it says is that an older,
wiser Sergeant has a very different view than his young charges.  A view
born of 20 years of slugging it out in jungles, mountains, snow and
deserts.  It is not an easy view to come by and did not happen overnight.
The metaphor is that the same situation would exist for gays.  And no
amount of Political Correctness legislation is going to change a soldier's
view overnight.

>>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.  The level of
>>ridicule and derision that a gay soldier would suffer would be
>extensive.  
>
>In the final analysis, the only way to overcome irrational fear or
>bigotry is by demonstration and example.  

I disagree with your adverb of irrational.  The military has a lot of
experience with gays, much of it not good.  In particular soldiers breaking
under pressure, predatory gay soldiers in positions of authority as NCOs
and Officers praying on subordinates.  Like it or not, it has and does
happen.  Maybe not much, but it does.

However, I do agree with your general statement that fear is overcome
demostration and example.

>Sure, a gays may have to endure
>some hazint, and few hard headed bigots may have to have some sense
>beaten into them.  

Be serious.  There are going to be deaths.  Plain and simple.  There will
be quite a few gays killed, in one way or another, and possible some
straights killed perhaps in rataliation.  The circumstances are speculation
but people will die for their sexual preferences.

>That's how it was with blacks, and I don't expect this
>scenario to play itself out much differently.  However, would you argue
>that this would have been sufficient to justify keeping blacks out?

No, I don't think it justifies keeping anyone out.  But don't try to make
seem like blacks were accepted overnight.  We're talking a 100 years for
full acceptance.  Personally, I don't think blacks reached full acceptance
until Colin Powell became JCS Chair.  Only then did blacks truly prove that
they could do any job (which they always could).  This is the road that
gays are faced with that blacks have completed, and women are still
traveling.

>
>>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.  Because to cry and whine over
>>bahaviour like this just means you can't hack it when the balloon goes
>up.
>
>Those 10 gaybasher are just as likely to have the shit beat out of them
>(probably one at a time) by others (gay and/or straight) who don't take
>kindly to seeing their friends' ass kicked for no good reason.

That is precisely true.  So now we have a clear division within the ranks
destroying unit cohesion, reducing combat readiness, and lowering the
overall ability of our country to defend itself.  And for what?

>You seem to have a really warped stereotypical view of what homosexuals
>are like.  Other than their preference for sex partners, they are =just=
>like everybody else!  Some are heroes and some are cowards, some are
>wimps and some are tough as nails.

I agree.  But clearly you did not read through to the end of my post.  I do
not question a gay's ability to serve, I submit that he average soldier
will question a gay's ability to serve.  And that the opinion of the
average soldier is more important than a gay's desire to serve alongside
the average soldier.  Such a disruption in the military is not worth it
especially if it is done as a fait accompli by executive order.  Which is
what Clinton promised, and gay activists are demanding.  If it was instead
done as long term (20+ years) goal, then it might work without people
getting killed.


>>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.  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.
>
>So, are you suggesting that integrating blacks a bad idea?

Oh, god, you're dumb.  What I said, is you want an idea of what it's going
to be like for gays if they are forced on the existing military, watch the
movie TAPs.  It shows clearly what it was like for blacks in the military
in the 50s.  Do I disagree with their treatment, ABSOLUTELY!  But I'm not
so stupid as to close my eyes and think integrating gays into the military
is as simple as passing a law and having the JAGs of the military stop
discharging them.  Instead, it will be just like it was for blacks, and
with all the cost that the military suffered through the 50s 60s and 70s.

And while being black is clearly biological, as is being female, there is
no such clear evidence that being homosexual is.  Therefore, I see no
reason to afford it equal status under the law as race.

>>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.  And no amount of
>legislation
>>or executive orders can automatically change people over night.
>
>Yes, it =will= take time.  And the prejudices will not go away until gays
>have had the chance to prove just how hollow and unfounded they are.

I agree with you, very strongly here.  And many others in and out of the
military also agree.  Where we disagree is in the time-table, and means.
What is your opinion and other gay activists on segregated service by
homosexuals?  Such a mechanism allowed, blacks, indians, and other
non-white minorities to prove themselves in combat as segregated units.

>>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).
>
>OK, but consider these costs, as well:
>   1) A military leadership with no sense of justice and ethics is a
>serious potential danger to everybody, including the society it is
>supposed to be protecting.

Justice and ethics?  These are transitory to the prevailing winds of
society.  Every member of the armed forces swears to defend and protect the
Constitution of the United States, which clearly submits the armed forces
to civilian authority.  The military state their opposition to gays until
civilian leadership forces it upon them, and then the military will jump to
and get it done.  Colin Powell as already stated this.  They do know how to 
take orders.  Your argument has an erroneous assumption.

>   2) A society which tolerates discrimination against a minority with no
>rational reason is inconsisitant with our country's moral and ethical
>principles.

Minority?  I like tall women with long brown hair, curvascious figures,
sultry voices and firm butts.  Does that make me a minority?  I'm Scottish
by descent, does that make me a minority?  If homosexuality is a choice,
how can you choose yourself to be a minority?  If it's biological, will you
accept a cure?

While I have no tolerance for discrimination, I also don't see
homosexuality, lesbian, bisexuality et al on a equal footing with being
black, native american, oriental, et al.  But that is a different subject.
Besides the military has a mission, and that mission dictates their
rational.  Society is a reflection of the wishes of it constiuents, be they
good or bad.

>and these benefits:
>   1) A military which selects it's soldiers from the largest available
>population and uses each individual's abilities to their best application
>is the best available force.

The military currently has the highest level of education, rediness and
re-enlistment in its history.  Because it can be selective and turn away
those that it does not desire, regardless of their ability to perform (i.e.
I believe the Air Force now requires all enlistees to be high school
graduates or they are denied)

>   2) A soldier who knows how to assess a situation (including a person)
>strictly on the facts, without regard to irrelevant prejudices, is a
>better, more effective soldier.

A soldier that can assess the situation and judge it, not just on facts but
intuition, experience and assesment of his troops abilities just as important.
Prejudices do play into that.  Ask Col. Hackworth, Ret, about his
experiences with homosexuals under combat.

Last word:
	Homosexuals can be capable soldiers like anyone else through proper
training, but to "legitimize" their status through laws, orders, and
coercion into the military in an overnight manner is a disaster waiting to
happen.  It should happen, but only over a lengthy period of time.
Remember, it wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was grounds for
revokation of security clearences.  That is no longer entirely true (for in
the closet gays it still may be grounds, but usually not for openly gays).
This is a step forward, such steps should continue to be made but only
slowly and with full forethought.  Not just to satisfy politically
expedient promises or a groups with a political agenda.
>
>Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

I knew Kim Kinnison, he was a friend of mine, and your no Kim Kinnison 8-).
	(sorry, but I couldn't resist)
>
>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,talk.politics.space,sci.space