From: jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 28 Jan 1993 13:10:36 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <1993Jan28.050019.6834@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) takes his mishapen head out of his hairy butt long enough
to spew forth:

>
>Powell ALSO has the duty to ignore or
>countermand ILLEGAL orders, so he is NOT a blind puppet to the
>C-in-C.  (Remember Ollie North's illegal orders that he followed and
>then got burnt for?)
>

I'm interested in your definition of "getting burnt."  As far as I can
see, being treated as a national hero and having *my* tax dollars pay
his goddam pension, is not particularly incinerated.

>
>Who would you rather have performing complicated surgery upon you?  Clinton
>or a most-competent surgeon who was a recognized expert in that field? 

Passing legislation and performing the higly specialized tasks which that 
legislation controls are two entirely different animals, Billy Boy. 
Clinton never suggested that he was more capable than Powell of 
planning & carrying out military operations.  It's just that he's
in the executive branch of the government - the branch which makes the
rules.  I'd rather have the surgeon performing surgery, but it's the
President's (and the Congress') place to lay down the rules & regulations
of how the hospitals in this country should be run.  A lot of people
disagree with Clinton's proposed health care system, but I've yet to
see anyone stand up & say that the Surgeon General is more qualified
to make these socio-economic decisions because he knows more about
anatomy than the prez.

>
>Homosexuality is based upon a behavioral trait, the desire to be
>sexually involved with a member or members of the same sex.
>
>Race and gender are physical traits, not behavioral ones.
>

OK, so homosexuality is behavioral, while race and gender are physical.
For that matter, choosing to worship Jesus, or Allah, or nobody at
all is a behavioral trait.  Does that mean that we shouldn't let 
atheists into the army, because we gotta keep them out of the foxholes.

Of course not.

Why?  Because being an atheist does not affect someone's ability
to be a good soldier.  Nor does being gay.  The Spartan army
was one of the greatest fighting forces in the ancient world.  
Obviously, buggering little Greek boys did not affect these
guys ability to kick military butt.  And there were a large number
of gays & lesbians over in the Gulf who acquitted themselves quite
nicely, thank you.  The only difference that this legislation will 
make will be that these people will be able to devote their full energy to 
making the US Army/Navy/Coast Guard etc. the best fucking fighting
force in the world, instead of wasting time pretending to be something
they aren't.

>
>BAD - not hiring the most-qualified job applicant because he is a
>      Hispanic.  Because you think Hispanics are sub-human.
>
>GOOD - Ordering chicken instead of a chef's salad at the local
>       restaurant.  Because you think that's what you prefer to eat.
>

BAD - throwing away perfectly good chicken, when people are starving,
because some type of pollophobia prevents you from letting people
eat what they want.  If you don't want the chicken, fine. Order a 
chef salad.  You're not homosexual.  Fine.   Fuck all
the women you want - if you can convince any of them to put standards
of personal decency and hygiene aside.  But who are YOU to mandate
anyone else's dinner menu or bed partners?

Jenny G


-- 
***************************************************************************
jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu is Jenny Gutbezahl @ Univ. of Mass, Amherst
****************************************************************************
"I'm not cheap, love.  Loud, but not cheap."  - Dil in The Crying Game
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism