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: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:37:13 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec11.123856.26610@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.150848.24614@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
]>It has been mentioned many times on
]>this thread, and ignored by so many progaysinmilitary types, that the
]>proper analogy has to do with women in the military, not blacks. 
]
]In some ways, yes...in others, no.   The reasons being put forward for
]excluding gays are much more similar to (and just as invalid as) those used
]to exclude blacks.  
Nice of you to postulate their invalidity, but why not try to prove it.
In the following sentence you admit that they are similar to other
reasons that are used to force segregation of women, but you don't claim
that that segregation is invalid. Which is it?
]The difficulties inherent in correcting the problem are,
]indeed, more similar to the admission of women.  Once we overcome the
]reasons for the discrimination, =then= we should address the difficulties of
]implementation.
Huh?

]But, I hear you say, the difficulties =are= the reasons.  Nobody is saying
]that it will be easy, or without shortterm impact.  However, if the
]military's sole reason for perpetuating this archaic prejudice is that it
]won't be easy, then (...oops, this is how I ended my other paragraph).
If it will be disruptive, and it won't improve the force, why do it?
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.
]
]>Note
]>that the military had to make substantial changes in order to accomodate
]>women, but still does not grant them "equal rights"  for example, to
]>serve in ground combat.  Why can't you compare the situation to that. 
]
]Probably because many feel, as I do, that there are women as qualified
](sometimes =more= qualified) to be ground combatants as many who currently
]so serve.  However, they are excluded =solely= because they are women.  For
]example, in spite of the Air Force's own findings that women appear to make
]better combat fighter pilots, they are still completely excluded from that
]duty.  So don't try to justify one injustice by citing another.

Notice how he slyly sequeues from women as ground combatants (my point)
to women as fighter pilots (unrelated issue)! Try again. 
]
]>The
]>military, under pressure, admitted women into many more areas than they
]>used to serve in. In order to do so, they suffered additional expenditures,
]>and documented (in the gulf war) loss of efficiency. 
]
]There were both documented losses and improvements in efficiency
]attributable to the presence of women.  When presented with =any= new and
]different resource, it is not the least bit surprising that they would not
]immediately be able to put it to the best possible use and integrate it into
]the system perfectly.  Eventually, they will, unless we allow them to to
]continue to operate based on prejudice rather than reality.

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.

]>Now you want to make
]>an even more radical change? And compare it to civil rights? If you want
]>to do it, why not address the consequences, instead of continuing to spout
]>"equal rights?" 
]
]The predicted consequences have been =repeatedly= addressed and reasonably
]dealt with, in this forum and elsewhere.
No, they have not. They have either been dismissed as unimportant or have
been ignored.

]>Why not address the question that if we provide separate
]>sleeping and showering quarters for women, we should also do it for gays?
]
]Sigh.  OK, one more time.  Any ONE of the following should be sufficient to
]counter that contention: 1) Gays and straights have =always= shared the same
]quarters and showers with no ill effects.  
Not openly gay people.

2) As soon as enough straights ]realize that gays are not a threat, then 
nobody will =care= if they are ]showering together.  

Fine, when you reach that social nirvana, I will withdraw that part
of my objection. Are you willing to wait for that before integrating
gays into the military?

3) Even the genders are separated only as a ](unnecessary, in my opinion) 
concession to social morays.  If necessity
]dictated then that custom could and would be dropped with no negative
]reprecussions (probably even some surprisingly positive ones, in terms of
]morale and comraderie).

Wow! What an assumption! That they would be dropped with no negative
repercussions! Amazing that you baldly assert that.

]>Nice of you to recognize that most folks have the freedom to associate with
]>whom they want. To bad you don't realize that soldiers, whom we pay to
]>little and whom we ask to sacrifice their lives for us, do NOT have that
]>freedom. But you don't mind.... YOU are going to just force the living
]>with gays on those who do join the army. 
]
]But that is =precisely= the point.  In the military, racists are forced to
]associate with other races and nice people are forced to associate with
]flaming a**holes.  I would also mention that misogynists and sexists are
]forced to associate with women, but you don't see how this relates to the
]issue, so I won't.  (<grin>)  So, why make a special case for people who
]don't like associating with gays?
Notice I said "living with gays" not "associate" with them. I don't have
much sympathy for those who are unwilling to associate with gays, but
I have plenty of sympathy with those who don't want to live with them
in the same foxhole and shower.

]>Can't you see that the "forcing"
]>occurs with or without gays in the military? In one case, we force the
]>gays to stay out, while in another case we force the nongays to
]>sleep and fight with the gays. In either case, there is a violation of
]>preferences. It isn't as simple or as one sided as you would make it!
]
]To cater specifically to those who find gays offensive or invasive is about
]as one sided as I can imagine.
To cater specifically to the open gays is equally one sided, and even
more invasive (in fact, what is "invasive" about catering to those who
don't want to live with gays?).
]
]>By the way, I assume you believe that the government has the right to
]>ban all abortions, since only a "privacy" right has allowed the court
]>to prevent that, and you obviously don't give a damn about privacy.
]
]THERE'S an Olympic calibre leap of logic, if I ever saw one.  Start a new
]thread if you want to pursue that one!  I'd be delighted!
No, I'm just looking for logical completeness. With your views it is likely
that you are "pro-choice" - and the legal foundation for the pro-choice
argument is a right to privacy. See the parallel?


-- 
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
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12019 alt.politics.clinton:18965 alt.politics.bush:14806 alt.politics.homosexuality:8259 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10521