From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:00:18 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec17.220811.1054@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
]In article <1992Dec16.042357.6412@anasazi.com>, 
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]> 
]> In article <1992Dec14.224746.1042@calmasd.prime.com> 
]> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
]>
]> >> As I said before, the military is not like any other institution.
]> >
]> >Yes, you have said that over and over and over and over.  But you have
]> >yet to draw any conclusions from it that add to your argument.  A case
]> >that is close to military are police and fire forces.  These jobs
]> >often require living in close quarters, group cohesiveness, and
]> >relying others in life threatening situations.  When police or fire
]> >forces have lifted their bans on homosexuality they haven't been
]> >overrun by "out" homosexual applicants.  
]>
]> A policeman or fireman can quit any time he wants. He isn't isolated from
]> society and forced to live in close intimacy with members of his
]> organization. He typically doesn't depend on unit cohesion, other
]> than needing to get along will with his partner. The police office is
]> typically older than the enlisted soldier, and better educated.
]> These are still significant differences.
]
]So how does this add to your argument that the military is SO
]DIFFERENT that it could never accept open homosexuals?  Or counter my
Simple. The previous poster claimed that the success (?) of allowing
admitted gays into police and fire departments implies that the same
would be true in the military. I am pointing out relevant differences
between those situations.

]argument that the military will not be overrun by out homosexuals?
Must you stoop to straw man arguments? Are you that desperate?
]
]Also, many police forces which require officers of varying backgrounds
]to be more effective, have implemented plans to help all officers
]understand the importance of accepting diversity and still work as a
]team.  (They also do it to help them better understand the people they
]are serving.) I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to the military.  

I'm sure you don't.
]
]I imagine you are going to argue here that the military isn't like the
]police since it does not need homosexuals.  I'll try and head this off
]by saying the role of the military is changing.  Yes, we still need a
]strong defense, but most of the recent military involvements are much
]more than just fighting wars.  Some of these are: the L.A. riots,
]post-hurricane aid to South Florida, and peace keeping and police
]actions in countries with cultures very different than ours.  We can
]argue about the correctness of these actions elsewhere.  The point is
]that the military is currently enacting Bush's new world order policy
]and it requires much more of the military than just destroying things. 
]The new role of the military also requires accepting, or at least an
]acquiring an understanding of, a whole new range of humanity and
]lifestyles than the military has ever faced before.  I don't see how
]the military of country that is supposed to be the leading defender of
]freedom and democracy in the world can be accepted in this new role if
]it continues to discriminate against a large portion of its own citizens.

This is supposed to be logic? Seems awfully touchy feely to me. PS, gays
do not constitute a large portion of the US, and the military doesn't
have any citizens.

]
]> Okay, so let us assume this is true. [that more women than men are
]> removed for the miliatry for homosexuality.] Does it mean an injustice, or 
]> does it mean that more women then men servicepersons (proportinately)
]> are gay.
]
]Even if there are more lesbians than gays in the military, it still 
]means an injustice.  
Not true.
]One of the problems with prosecuting tailhook is
]that many of the women involved are now facing charges of
]homosexuality.  Many of these women have served in the military for
]years.  Many were pretty well known as lesbians.  However, only after
]tailhook did anyone care.  I've heard similar stories from other
]lesbians and straight women in the military.  Basically the army looks
]the other way on homosexuality of women until they need to use their
]homosexuality against them.  The military is using the ban on
]homosexuals inconsistently and in away that encourages the violation
]of the military's own rules of conduct.
If so, it's wrong.
]
]Also when someone is removed from the military they are asked for
]other homosexual acquaintances in the military.  1500 men and women are
]removed from the military every year on charges of homosexuality.  In
]1990 alone the military spent $27 million to replace these people. 
]This does not include the cost of investigation and discharges.  We
]lost the training and experience of 1500 qualified military personnel.  
]It isn't enough that ban is government sanctioned  discrimination, it
]is also a the largest taxpayer financed witch hunt that our government
]has ever undertaken.

$27 million a year wouldn't come close to the costs of accomodating
gays in the military.

][Forgive me for drastically editing the following.  There was a
]lengthy discussion of various types harassment here and it has
]splintered into many points and counter points.  The argument was
]lacking focus and going nowhere.]
]
]> I have read plenty of instances of false accusations leading to problems. 

... much of my own stuff delted...
]
]All of your arguments on harassment read like you believe the reason
]that employers (private and government) have harassment policies is to
]give gays, racial minorities, and women a way to victimize straight
]white men.  You deny that any actual harassment occurs and argue that
]the only ones being harassed are the accused.  Think about what you
]are saying for awhile.  It doesn't make any sense.  

Geez! Please try thinking before posting! This is really leaping
to conclusions. First of all, it makes not difference what the
PURPOSE of harassment policies is - I am talking (CLEARLY IMHO)
about consequences. Second, nowhere have I denied that harassment
occurs. I invite you to refute this paragraph. Go dig into my
postings and find one place where I say or imply that: (1) employers have
harassment policies to give ... a way to victimize...; (2) Actual
harassment does not occur. If you can't find those, then please
retract the above paragraph.

]Why would the government and private employers which are predominately
]run by straight white men enact such policies?  Why would employers
]that would fire or lay off their employees without batting an eye care
]if harassment is occurring?

He continues, arguing against a straw man of his own creation...

]The reason that employers have policies against harassment is because
]harassment is detrimental to productivity of the workers involved. 

Partly, and partly because of fear of lawsuits, and partly because
of government regulations. Note that anti-harassment policies have
been greatly increased since the government gave people a license
to sue the employer (for his deep pockets) in allegations of
harassment. If it had to do with productivity, why didn't those
policies exist 30 years ago?

]The person who is doing the harassment isn't working.  The employee
]being harassed is trying to perform their job in a hostile environment
]that interferes with their productivity.  Workplace cohesion and
]morale suffer.  All of this translates into wasted time and
]unproductive workers.  Employers are not trying to be fair or play
]social engineer.  They are trying to maximize the productivity of the
]their workforce.  Employers take harassment seriously not out of the
]goodness of their hearts, but because it affects the bottom line.

Yes, on their lawyers' advice.

]Not allowing workplace harassment is setting a standard of conduct. 
]The military is already big on establishing rules on conduct.  You are
]right that some people will resent rules of conduct because it
]requires them to control their behavior.  I say tough.  The military
]that thrives on discipline and if it can't control the conduct of its
]own personnel how is it going to have the discipline required to fight
]a war?

I am simply saying that adding opportunities for harassment adds
a requirement for an anti-harassment bureaucracy, and increases pressure
on those who MIGHT be accused of harassment. These folks may have to
go out of the way to avoid charges - such as promoting unqualified
gays who threaten to make accusations. This is easy to avoid - don't
allow open gays in the military in the first place.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh