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
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:51:19 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <grendel.724112278@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
]In <1992Dec9.195705.14181@brtph560.bnr.ca> chrisf@brtph316.bnr.ca (Chris Fulmer) writes:
]Not necessarily.  Homosexual soldiers would only be victimized by homophobic
]soldiers.  Those homophobic soldiers who victimize homosexual soldiers would
]be punished for it.
]
]If there were a platoon of soldiers in which were two homosexuals, and this
]platoon were out fighting in a foreign country, the intelligent heterosexuals,
]regardless of their feelings toward homosexuality, would reason: there is no
]way I can get these gays out of the platoon; I am involved in a life-or-death
]situation, and without unit cohesion we are all at risk; therefore, I will
]treat these gays just like everyone else so that we don't get killed.

Have you ever experienced the intelligence of the average grunt? I realize
that today, as opposed to when I was in the military, the educational level
of soldiers is higher, but still we are not talking about rocket scientists.
Furthermore, the "intelligent" soldiers might decide that the gays were
a threat to the fighting efficiency of their platoon, and thus a threat
to their lives and the lives of their friends, and do something (hazing,
harrassment, fragging, for example) to get them out of the platoon.
]
]>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?
]
]>Instead, the gay-rights people should try to integrate
]>the rest of society, to the effect that a soldier,
]>upin entering the military, wouldn't think twice about
]>serving with a gay man.
]
]Nice idea, and I'm all for it, but unfortunately it's an improbable task.
]"Integrating society" isn't something that can be done without an enormous
]consensus.  Look at racial integration: how long did it take _that_ to work?
]Some would argue (not me) that blacks _still_ aren't fully integrated.

Oh, I see.... so let's integrate the area where we are most likely to
cause death and destruction first, because it is easier. Great logic!
]
]>I guess what I'm trying to say is that the military is
]>absolutely the wrong place for social experiments.  Start
]>in the General Accounting Office or something where people
]>don't get killed if you're wrong.
]

I-V-O-R-Y---T-O-W-E-R---I-V-O-R-Y---T-O-W-E-R---I-V-O-R-Y---T-O-W-E-R---I
V                                                                       V
O If something is unjust, why wait to rectify the situation?            O
R                                                                       R
Y                                                                       Y
T-O-W-E-R---A-L-E-R-T---A-L-E-R-T---A-L-E-R-T---A-L-E-R-T---A-L-E-R-T---]

]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.

]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
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!

]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?

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?

Seriously, why should we cause all this disruption to give the "right"
to gays to join the military (as if that were a right)?

[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?

I'll ask my quiz while I'm at it.... have YOU ever served in the
military?
-- 
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 ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11642 alt.politics.clinton:18611