From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:52:32 GMT

In <1992Dec13.055939.8253@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>In article <grendel.724191937@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>]In <1992Dec12.065119.15036@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>]>]>It seems to me that because of that line of reasoning,
>]>]>the military is not yet ready to be integrated.  I expect
>]>]>that if you were to have full integration and immediately
>]>]>have a war, then a significant number of the gays would be
>]>]>killed in the above situations.  And, that's not something
>]>]>that we want to risk.
>]>]
>]>]Who's "we"?  The army is a volunteer organization.  If a gay is in the army,
>]>]it's because he or she wants to be.  They're willing to risk their lives to
>]>]serve their country.
>]
>]>So what?
>]
>]What do you mean, so what?  Did you read the post I was responding to?
>]"That's not something that we want to risk."  Who's "we"?, I asked.
>]What don't you understand?
>I don't have the faintest idea why you brought up the issue of gays
>willing to risk their lives for their country. What does it have to do
>with the issue?
	
I was responding to a previous post.  The post implied that gays didn't want
to expose themselves to physical risk in the army.  I disagreed.  That's all.
Don't get so *upset*.

>]>]People already get killed in the military.  That's what war is all about.
>]>]When the military is not at war, there's no reason for anyone to get killed.
>]
>]>I guess you don't know that fewer American soldiers died during the Gulf
>]>War than during normal peacetime training, because normal training is
>]>quite dangerous? I had a number of friends who died in the military when
>]>not at war.
>]
>]I would have to assume they weren't murdered by their fellow soldiers,
>]and that they didn't die because of lack of Unit Cohesiveness.  If this
>]assumption is false, that means laws are not enforced in the military; this
>]is a problem that needs to be dealt with.  If this assumption is correct,
>]that's the kind of risk anyone, straight or otherwise, takes upon entering
>]the military.
>Once again, you miss the point. You asserted that when the military is not
>at war, there's no reason for anyone to get killed. I pointed out that
>the military is a dangerous place even when not at war. Your response
>about murder of fellow soldiers is just unrelated to anything. Try again.

<heavy sigh>  John, all I was doing was trying to get you to be more explicit.
You stated that some friends of yours died in the military during peacetime.
If you're going to offer such personal experiences as justification for your
arguments, you should expect me to ask questions about them.  What were the
circumstances of their death?  I ask because the original point of this part
of the discussion was the differences in law enforcement within the military.

>]>]The military is a good place to start integration because it is a rigidly
>]>]controlled environment.  
>]
>]>It also happens to be one of the most sensitive environments there is
>]>to this sort of experiment! I can't think of a place where there are
>]>more people uncomfortable with homosexuality than in the military. I can't
>]	
>]Then isn't this the place that needs the most work to change these attitudes?

>No, it is a place that needs to be left alone to do the job required
>of it's members without disruption and additional danger. Frankly, I have
>yet to be convinced that the attitude of not wanting to sleep or shower
>with gays is wrong.

So now we come down to brass tacks.  After all these rhetoricals and
hypotheticals, what is really underlying all your objections is that you
just don't like fags, is that it?  You don't see anything wrong with
homophobia?  You don't see any reason why it should be dealt with?
This is what it's really about, I think, not "Unit Cohesiveness".

>]>think of a place where things which cause strife between individuals
>]>could be more destructive. I don't know about you, but I don't want
>]>the crew of a ballistic missile submarine screwed up by your experiment!
>]
>]There are lots of reasons a crew of a sub could be "screwed up".  The
>]presence of a gay soldier would have to be among the least likely.  If
>]you're in a life-or-death situation, are you going to do something
>]that threatens everyone's life because one of your crewmates is gay?
>]Or are you going to concentrate on staying alive and worry about prejudices
>]later?

>You obviously just don't understand how crew cohesiveness works. If it
>is screwed up during non-combat situations, it doesn't miraculously
>get better under stress.

Gee, how many times have you used this argument as an attempt to forestall
further discussion?  I'm having trouble keeping track.  "You just don't
understand.  You weren't there.  Reality is different in the military.
No use trying to explain it to you, you'd just twist it to your own foul
ends."  Please.  Try again.

>]>]This isn't a "social experiment"; it's the implementation of equal rights.  
>]
>]>Let's examine this. Do I have an equal right to shower and sleep in the
>]>same quarters with those whom I find sexually attractive? If not, why
>]>do gays?
>]	
>]This argument has only been advanced about a thousand times in this discussion.
>]It leads nowhere.  Gays are not attracted by all men, just as you are not
>]attracted by all women.  The purpose of the military is not sex.  People don't
>]enter it to get sex.  The fact that a gay soldier would be in intimate
>]surroundings with straight soldiers is incidental.  What is far more important
>]is that soldiers of any orientation be allowed to serve if they so choose.

>(1) Gays don't have to be attracted by all men for this argument to hold

So why do you assume a gay man is going to find you attractive?

>(2) The fact that the military's purpose is not sex is irrelevant.

It is?

>(3) How do YOU know gays wouldn't enter the military to get sex?

Of all the ways to get sex...boot camp, indoctrination, all the training and
hard work, the possibility of battle, and to top it, working with people who
(as you admit) generally find gays distasteful.  How do I know?  Ummmm....

>(4) The fact that gay soldiers would be in intimate surroundings with
>straight soldiers is hardly incidental.... it is the who issue, as you
>must by now realize.

Your issue, perhaps.  I was under the impression that the issue was whether
or not barring gays from the military was a violation of their rights.  Call
me crazy.

>(5) The purpose of the military is not sex, but it is also not a place
>to allow soldiers "of any orientation" to be "allowed" anything.... it is
>an organization whose purpose is killing people and breaking things, not
>"allowing" anyone "to serve if they so choose."

It's a volunteer citizen's army.  A gay can rape, kill, pillage and burn
just as well as any straight soldier.  If the military were not aware that
a young man was homosexual, they would force him to register for the draft
and, in the event of a draft, would take him along with anyone else.  It's
only when the young man stops lying about his identity that there'd be 
trouble.

>]>Let's examine this a bit farther. You are assuming that gays should have
>]>equal rights. From what do you derive this? Does this same logic apply
>]>to child molesters or rapists? After all, a lot of them simply have a
>]>sexual preference which is against social norms?
>]
>]John, do you even read this newsgroup, or do you just post?  I find it hard
>]to believe you haven't seen this argument advanced and refuted about _ten_
>]thousand times.  I can't believe you're actually taking this tired old tack.

>And I can't believe that you are once again missing my point! Did I ever
>say that child molesters or rapists ARE the same as homosexuals? Hell no...
>I am just pointing out that a simple assertion of equal rights clearly
>doesn't apply to everyone - in this case.... child molesters and rapists.

Well, DUH, because child molesters and rapists are *criminals*, unlike gays.
Right?  We in agreement here?  Argue rhetorically much?

>]No, child molesters and rapists are not the same as homosexuals.  The fact
>]that their sexual practices are against social norms is completely irrelevant.
>]Molestation and rape are crimes, because unlike homosexuality, they involve
>]the deprivation of rights of one of the parties involved.  Gay sex, for the
>]most part, takes place between two consenting adults.  No one gets hurt.
>]There's nothing wrong with it.  Nobody suffers any ill effects.  Are you
>]telling me you don't see any difference between that and rape?

>Geez... try to read what I write!
	
Care to answer my question?

>]>Seriously, why should we cause all this disruption to give the "right"
>]>to gays to join the military (as if that were a right)?
>]
>]Because equal rights is what this country is all about.  It is sadly ironic
>]that our military, supposedly that organization which is designed to fight
>]to preserve the freedoms of this country, does not observe them.

>It is ivory tower to the max to apply this sort of logic.

Another of your all-purpose End Of Conversation sentences goes into effect...

>]>[BTW, most places _do_ employ gays; the
>]>]military is an exception to the rule in our society.  Time to catch up.
>]
>]>The military is an exception to a lot of rules. For example, most
>]>places don't arrest you if you quit because you don't like the working
>]>conditions. Most places don't expect you to sleep in foxholes with
>]>people shooting at you. Of course the military is different, because,
>]>amazingly enough, the military really is a different place. Got it?
>]	
>]And Disneyland is a different place from CNN, yet people work in both places
>]and get paid in both places and take risks in both places.  So what?

>So what? Don't you see the difference between Disneyland and the military?
	
I do.  Again I ask, so what?  Every job is different, every job has its
peculiarities.

>]The military is a job just like anything else; it is organized by the govern-
>]ment, but you get paid for working there.  Different jobs have different
>]risks, and when you agree to work at a job, you agree to take the risks
>]involved with it.  It's reasonable to agree to uncomfortable situations
>]like sleeping in foxholes when working for the military, because those
>]kinds of situations are to be expected in battle.  But, like any other
>]job, equal rights are also to be expected.  There's no reason to make an
>]exception for the military because it's run by the government.

>No! No! No! The military is NOT a job like anything else. Name ONE job
>that is non military that it is against the law to quit! Name ONE job
>where the penalty for refusing to obey orders is either criminal sanctions
>or instant execution!  I am amazed that you cannot tell the difference!
>The  military is the only job I know of that requires one to surrender
>basic human rights as a condition of employment, with NO way to change
>your mind later.

That's the nature of effective warfare, which is the military's purpose.
And Citibank's purpose is effective business.  So what?  Both are jobs.
You go to work there, you get money for working.  The longer you work,
the more money you get.  Job.

>]>I'll ask my quiz while I'm at it.... have YOU ever served in the
>]>military?
>]
>]Nope.  Never will, if I can help it.  Doesn't matter.  I've never worked at
>]Cracker Barrel, either, but I still know it's not okay to discriminate against
>]gays.

>Nice try. Every one of your posts shows a determined ignorance of the 
>difference between military life and anything else. Even this last sentence
>of yours, comparing Cracker Barrel to the military, shows this arrogant
>disregard for the fundamental differences.

I only compare Cracker Barrel to the military because both discriminate
against gays.  I've never worked for the former; this doesn't change the fact
that discrimination against gays, just like discrimination against women,
blacks, or any other such group, is a violation of equal rights.  Likewise,
I've never worked for the latter; this doesn't change the fact that
discrimination is still wrong.

Every one of your posts shows condescension toward those who have not served
in the military, as if they somehow don't have a full grasp of the issue.
No doubt experience in the military teaches one a great deal, but this
doesn't exclude those who have not served from discussion.  You continually
use this as an excuse to stop discussion, and it's simply not good enough.
If there's such a great difference between military reality and reality
outside of the military, it behooves you to explain what this is.

>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

--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Newspapers screamed for blood...
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     it was the best of times."
Squid Power                              --Sting

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11767 alt.politics.clinton:18768 alt.politics.bush:14627