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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:23:57 GMT

Keywords: 

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.

It is true that firemen even moreso police are closer to the military
than other civilian occupations - to the point of even having
paramilitary aspects such as military rank and military style
uniforms. That doesn't make them the same, although I suspect that
some of my arguments would apply to a police or fire department. I
remember reading of a lot of problems when gay officers came out
of the closet in San Francisco - presumably one of the most tolerant
and informed places about gays.
]>
]> No (see above). However, I am also arguing privacy.
]>
]
]I'm missing something in your argument above.  It looks to me like you
]are flip-flopping.  You argue privacy.  I attack it.  You say
]you meant harassment.  I attack harassment.  You say you meant
]privacy.  And on and on.

Huh? I contend that both are valid issues. Harrassment (and accusations
of) are potentially more of a problem in the service where gays can
be open. Privacy is definitely more of a problem.
]
]> >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.
]
]Well then you don't have much of an argument here...just paranoia of
]imagined excesses.
No, just lack of specific cases laying around on my desk. I have read
plenty of instances of false accusations leading to problems. Did you
delete my examples in the area of child abuse?
]
]> >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 harassment. 
]> >Current it looks like the ban is used to protect men who sexually
]> >harass women.
]> Do you have statistics to back this up? 
]
]I've heard the above stated on several occasions.  Two occasions that
]I recall are: on _Nightline_ in interviews with people on both sides
]of the ban issue and on _Face the Nation_ in a discussion with various
]members of congress.   I've also heard a three times number used. 
]However, every time I've heard this argument, the other side never
]argues or disputes it.  However, I think it would be safe to assume
]that more women than men are discharged for homosexuality.  I've never
]heard anyone claim otherwise.
Okay, so let us assume this is true. Does it mean an injustice, or does
it mean that more women then men servicepersons (proportinately)
are gay.

]> Even if you do, there are
]> two problems:
]>   (1) a complaint of sexual harassment may or may not be true
]
]Even so, counter-charging that someone is a lesbian does nothing to
]disprove a sexual harassment charge.
True. So what? Do you think I am advocating such a thing?
]
]>   (2) a complaint of homosexuality may or may not be true
]
]Even so, counter-charging that someone is a lesbian does nothing to
]disprove a sexual harassment charge.
You said this before.
]
]> The more rules, the more false complaints.
]
]So sexual harassment rules are wrong then?  Or is having a rule than
]bans homosexuals wrong?  If rules are wrong, you can't have it both
]ways.
Yes, sexual harassment rules are wrong IMHO (unless there are clear
standards in the rules, and decent rules of evidence are used). Rules
banning open homosexuality are not wrong, if there are clear standards
and decent rules of evidence.
]
]> >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. 
]
]Well, since you can't site any cases here to back your claim, I guess we
]are left with having to wait and see.  

Or we can look at the way these politics have worked in other situations
and see rules that have gotten completely out of hand (the University
teaching assistant who was sanctioned for staring at females at the
University pool comes to mind). There are a lot of cases in the
area of sexual harassment that are completely stupid. I just cited
one.
]
]Gay bashing in the military occurs now and goes unreported. 

Hmmm... what's sauce for the goose...
Can you cite cases or is this just paranoia? :-)

]Homosexuals aren't going to do anything about it when they get fired
]for even making the claim. I don't feel that homosexuals need special
]protection from gay bashing.  Assault is assault.

Exactly, which is why homosexuals don't need any special protection.
That, however, is not the point. What you would find is not rules
against gay bashing, but rules against gay teasing, and rules against
discriminating against gays (which would no doubt lead most commanders
to always give gays good efficiency reports whether they deserved
them or not!).

]> 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 harassment today arise from similar situations.
]                            
]Again, let's have some proof.  It sounds to me like you are trying to
]blame the victim.

Not at all. I am pointing out that a villian can be transformed into
a victim by these sorts of politics. Assume you have a gay soldier who
is misbehaving. His commander (or NCO) gives him a bad efficiency
report, or reprimands him, for this behavior. He files charges of
anti-gay discrimination against the commander. The commander is tied up
for months in hearings and prosecution, at great cost to himself and
his career, as a result of this false accusation.

If you don't believe that this will happen, then tell me why it will
not. I obviously can't produce any proof, because with the current
rules this injustice cannot happen, so there are no cases to cite!
]
]> >> 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.
]
]I don't understand your "yes" here.  Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
]I didn't ask a yes/no question.

The military has adapted over centuries effective methods of dealing with 
people. Social engineering is when you change the rules on ideological
grounds rather than pragmatic ones, and when you do it with no evidence
that it will improve the functioning of the organization, and considerable
risk that it will impair the functioning of that organization.
]
]> 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 harassment." 
]
]Removing the ban on homosexuals isn't criminalizing anyone.  In fact,
]it is just the opposite.  Homosexuals will have the same code of
]conduct.  Since homosexuals are no more or less likely to engage in
]sexual harassment, the overall number of sexual harassment cases will
]remain the same.

Homosexuals that are now in are less likely to engage in sexual
harassment because it would give away their sexual preference. In the
future they might be able to hide actual sexual harrassment behind
countercharges of gay bashing.

]
]> 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 harassment.) 
]
]I don't see what child abuse has to do with this discussion.  It isn't
]comparable to sexual harassment.

Of course it does. Both involve cases of behavior where there are
very vague standards; where the accusing party often has no corroboration; 
where there is no physical evidence to resolve the factual dispute between
the accuser and accusee; and, where there have been a lot of cases
of very questionable accusations that resulted in significant harm
to the accusee.

]> And yes, it is damn
]> scary to criminalize vague social interactions.
]
]Sexual harassment isn't a "vague social interaction".  It is very well
]defined.  I'll agree that lots of people don't understand it.  That's
]why many companies educate employees on what is and isn't sexual
]harassment.  If you have a human resources representative they should be
]able to explain harassment very clearly.

Why don't you try to tell me just where the line 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
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh