From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:19:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1993Jan5.062700.14113@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.205124.27085@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.002350.21895@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.212551.14782@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec23.183439.17001@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>specific act or attempted act of sodoymy, which is a crime under military
>law;  general allegations of homosexual preference are not pursued.
>"That's a lot of bull," says Krug, citing his investigation.  "They didn't
>have any evidence of an act that had occurred.  All they had was this
>person that said I'm a friend of his and that I'm gay."
>
>This states that while sodomy, and the earlier piece oral sex are a crime
>under military.  And other's indicate that gays are banned by Executive
>Order.  If so, might it possible to rescind the Executive Order, but leave
>the current laws in place (a year, 5, 10) as a compromise?  Basically
>giving homosexuals a chance to openly prove themselves (they have done so
>privately for centuries), while alleviating the perceived threat to
>privacy, masculinity, and unit cohesion?   As many have stated, being gay
>does not equate to being a raving sexual maniac, and their ability to hold
>their libidos in check and be professional is just the same as the
>hetrosexual soldiers holding in check desires to fraternize with soldiers
>of the opposite sex.  Such a "cool" period, while absurd to many here,
>could provide the compromise to slowly, but inexorbly integrate open gays
>into the military.

>Comments?

I beleive that this type of plan does have some merit. Seeing as how strict
the military laws of sex are for hets(I think the only legal sex under military
law is with your spouse in the missionary position)then gays can't expect
to have everything changed in their favor overnight. Just the fact that the
Executive Order is being rescinded is a huge step. And of course it is a fact
that the military laws of sex are rarely enforced.(Outside of cases of rape
or overt harrassment ect)Still this does leave a hole in the rights of gays
vs. hets. While hets. would be allowed to have sex (legally)with a spouse
as far as I know gay marriages are not recognized by the military. Obviously
there is no solution that will please everyone but I think that getting the
ball rolling by rescinding the EO now in place is the best possible FIRST
step. 

>I await your answer to my above suggestion.  Some people I've talked to
>recently that represent some of the more "modern" aspects of the military
>feel the real question is not Why, or When, but How?  How do you balance
>the mission of the military, National Security, with the need to respect
>the will of the society they protect, which is growing to tolerate open
>homosexuality?  This is the real question many senior commanders are looking
>for answers to.  How to do you match up the stress oriented, typically macho
>training methods with a group that is stereotyped as non-masculine? 

I beleive that once you throw in those stereotyped as non-masculine and they
are able to cope with the same stress oriented training that everyone else
has to endure then those indivuals will, at least, earn the respect of the
others in their unit. Let's face it---if you can get through boot camp you
ain't no wimp.

>How do
>you get a chance to "experiment" with open homosexuality?  How do you break
>down stereotypes without the individual experiences to elucidate the
>education?  

Personally I don't know if you can break down someone's personal prejudices
without the benefit of those individual experiences. One of the "tricks"
that the military uses today when they run into a recruit that is prejuduce
against those with a different skin color is to force that person to have to
relate with someone that they hold that prejudice against---almost constantly.
The military has had great success with this program. Once you go through
something as tough as boot camp side by side someone it becomes next to 
impossible to hold a haterd for that person based on next to nothing.  
i.e.There can't be any "experiment"--you just have to jump in with both feet.
Yes this will be extremely tough at 1st, but on the other hand EVERYONE has
to earn respect.

>Until answers are found, in general the military would rather not deal
>with it and possibly compromise its mission.  (It's an argument a little
>genuine, a little bullshit.  The military just hates instability.)

I'm sure you're right that the military would rather not deal with it.
However they are trained to follow orders and to except whatever comes down
from above. Which is going to be the case just as soon as Bill lets his pen
fly.


Stan Knight
|It takes a President to CHANGE just about anything in the military|
ps Life is busy these days--little time for net fun. For awhile I'll only be
reachable at stank@net.com
Peace, Love and Fire that M1 you homo!:-)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13427 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12015 alt.politics.clinton:19929 alt.politics.bush:15730