From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:55:54 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec13.223819.1036@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
]> And it is even less of a problem if the gays aren't allowed in the
]> military in the first place, which is my point.
]
]By following your line of reasoning it would also be less if only
]homosexuals were allowed in the military.  (i.e. if heterosexuals were
]banned from the military instead of homosexuals there would be no
]cases of heterosexuals being harassed by homosexuals.)

Yes, if you just follow that logic. However, if the military were totally
homosexuals one would expect the amount of sexual relations between
members of the military to increase, which would probably not be
a good thing. IE, this would be analogous to total integration of
male and female hets (common sleeping, showering, etc). We already know
that a coed military has a lot of sex going on - an all gay one would
presumably be equally vulnerable. The other reason, of course, for
not having an all gay military is that the available pool of applicants
would be too small.
>> 
>> But that was NOT my point. My point is that with homosexuals in the military,
>> there will be more cases of sexual harassment than without, because there
>> will be more opportunity.
>
>To make this point, you need to prove there will be more homosexuals
>in the military after the ban is lifted than there are currently. 
Yes, I'll concede that there is some truth to this, but that is a
reasonable assumption. However, having gayness accepted in the military is l
ikely also a cause of increased sexual advances.

]I'll agree it seems likely there would be more homosexuals in the
]military, but I still doubt that the military will be flooded with out
]of the closet homosexuals.  It hasn't happened when any other
]institution has lifted a ban on homosexuals.
As I said before, the military is not like any other institution.
]
]> ]> and there are lots
]> ]> of cases of heterosexual harassment (remember "tailhook"?).
]> ]
]> ]So your assumption here is that homosexuals should be banned from the
]> ]military because heterosexuals have been unable to control their
]> ]sexual attractions.  I think this is an unfair conclusion. 
]> 
]> No. As I have argued before, the actual cases of sexual harrassment are
]> a side issue compared to the perceived lack of privacy that heterosexuals
]> will feel. 
]
]But you weren't arguing privacy above...you were arguing harrassment
]cases.  So would it be safe to assume that you will quit arguing
]harrassment now?
No (see above). However, I am also arguing privacy.
]> Yes, at CONSIDERABLE expense of unit morale. Cracking down on sexual
]> harassment almost always leads to excesses, where people make false
]> claims of sexual harassment. 
]
]Can you site some examples?  Also give some examples of the falsely
]accused being falsely convicted.
Now that would be hard to do, wouldn't it, since I would have to have
information not available to the courts.
]
]Currently the ban on homosexuals leads to excesses.  Currently six
]times as many women as men are removed from the military for being
]homosexual.  A woman is most like to have charges of homosexuality
]filed against her after she has complained about sexual harrassment. 
]Current it looks like the ban is used to protect men who sexually
]harass women.
Do you have statistics to back this up? Even if you do, there are
two problems:
  (1) a complaint of sexual harrassment may or may not be true
  (2) a complaint of homosexuality may or may not be true

The more rules, the more false complaints.


]> This will happen a lot to gays, and likewise
]> there will be a lot of complaints of gay bashing. All of this will simply
]> add to distrust and fear between members of the military, and THAT
]> is seriously detrimental to the military. Better to avoid the problem
]> in the first place by sexual preference segregation.
]
]Before you switch arguments on me again, are you now saying that you would
]agree to homosexuals in the military if they were segregated?
I would be more favorable to it, although the costs of doing so probably
outweigh the benefit.

]> Why? The "out" homosexual will be a specially protected species, and
]> complaints against him will likely be ignored because they will be seen as
]> "gay bashing."     ^^^
]
]That's him and her.  How would allowing homosexuals in the military
Jesus! At the time I wrote this, I thought about using him and her,
but decided it wasn't worth the bandwidth, because I didn't think
people would be silly enough to jump on it. 

]make them a "protected species"?  Aren't people in the military who
]beat up others currently subject to disciplinary action?  Or are you
]arguing that it will be more difficult to get away with beating up
]homosexuals after the ban is lifted?  
No, I am arguing that gay bashing will naturally result, through our
typical pressure group politics, in regulations that make gays essentially
protected. A superior could face untrue charges of gay bashing for
punishing (not beating) a gay subordinate - even if the punishment
was required and not related to gayness. I'll bet that a lot of
charges of sexual harrassment today arise from similar situations.
]
]> One of the problems with using legal means for social engineering is
]> that it leads to excesses. 
]
]The current ban on homosexuals is also "social engineering" and it 
]leads to excesses.  Why are these excesses acceptable?
Yes.
]
]> All of a sudden ordinary human interactions can 
]> suddenly come under the microscope in a courtroom, and this causes people
]> to be more careful and suspicious of each other... exactly what the military 
]> does not need!
]
]So you are arguing that we have an unfair military system that can't
]stand up under our own country's legal system.  I don't know if that
]scares you, but it scares me.
No, I don't think our military system is unfair. I do, however, have
deep suspicion of criminalizing a lot of human interactions that are
vague - such as "sexual harrassment." It is too easy to make charges
that are unfounded and use those as a weapon (for an example, note how
many times parents are deprived of their children as a result of
untrue allegations of child abuse - and I claim that child abuse is
much more of a crime than sexual harrassment.) And yes, it is damn
scary to criminalize vague social interactions.


-- 
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
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview