From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:12:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.044919.6848@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
john@anasazi.com writes:
>]We've been over this, John.  The reasons for excluding gays primarily
>]involve the unwillingness of some current servicepeople to associate
with
>]them.  This is much more like the race issue than the sex issue.  

>Why is that? How about the unwillingness of some current servicepeople
>to share beds and showers and foxholes with members of the opposite
>sex? We accomodate that with segregation. Why not do it with gays?
>WHAT exactly is the relevant difference?

The relevant difference is that you are proposing a =new= form of
segregation, ostensibly to emphasize other differences that =make= no
difference in this context.

>]>If it will be disruptive, and it won't improve the force, why do it?

I've explained the reasons why it =will= improve the force (in previous
post, quoted below).  What will ultimately damage it will be the
tolerance of injustice.

>]>I repeat my assertion that the purpose of the military is to wreck
things
>]>and kill people. This social engineering seems ill fitted to that
>]purpose.

>]I have contended, and continue to maintain, that by selecting, based on
>]individual merit, from the largest available population, you attain the
>]best possible fighting force.  That is how the military will be
>]=improved=.

>Okay, and I'll continue to maintain that one's avowed and open sexual
>preference modifies one's effectiveness in the REAL WORLD, EXISTING
>military, and thus is a valid factor in discriminating between
>candidates for service.

Ones effectiveness (as well as one's unit's) is ones ability to accept
and work with people who are, even radically, different.

>]The point was that women are excluded from =all= combat roles, even when
>]that exclusion flies in the face of reason.

>That, I would point out, is about to change. I think we will shortly
>see women as combat pilots and aircrewmen but not ground combat
>soldiers. Makes sense to me.

It's a step in the right direction, but if a woman is a more competant
ground combat soldier, she should be the one on the line.

>]>Please tell me which combat efficiency increased with the presence of
>]>women? I would agree that since women compose 50% of the available
labor
>]>pool, opening up jobs to them in appropriate areas could be helpful.
>]>The same logic does not apply to gays. There are not enough of them
>]>to sway the statistics.

>]I'll have to do some research to answer the first question.  With regard
>]to gays, the policy needs to include =everybody= without applicable
>]disabilities to be consistance.

>Huh? Include everyone without applicable disabilities (which I claim
>avowed homosexual behavior is)? Why?

This is the first time I've heard you admit to believing that
homosexuality is a "disability."  I've been maintaining that the only
applicable "disability" was the inablility of some people to tolerate
gay's presence.  Please describe the disability you are referring to.

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,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush