From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:51:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.202638.21289@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <daj20.724527276@junkers> daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks) writes:
[deleted stuff]
>
>]>]
>]>]	I think you have brought out the most basic reason that 
>]>]	motivates many who are against gays in the military, and that
>]>]	is simply fear.  As you put it: fear of sexual interest from
>]>]	gays, fear of unwanted passes, even fear of rape.  All I can
>]>]	say is that the proper way to deal with fear IS NOT to try
>]>]	to make it go away; it doesn't work that way.
>]>
>]>THat's nice. Now why don't you go down to San Diego and tell that to
>]>the tough dudes in Seal Team One. Good luck! Then go to the Recruit Training
>]>Depot and explain it to the street toughs who are being processed into
>]>the military.
>]
>]	I don't understand what you mean (sorry i'm not trying to be
>]	difficult here).
>]
>]	Are you saying that because these dudes are tough seal team
>]	members or street toughs that they wouldn't exactly welcome
>]	such a message?  I never said they would, or that any of this
>]	would be easy to do, just that it should be done.  I feel that
>]	you are saying, "well, yea, we should do that, but i reality
>]	it too hard".
>
>No, I am saying that whether or not we should do that, reality is too
>hard. I am also saying that I have no faith in using attitude engineering
>techniques to successfully alter homophobia in the military.

The one reason why many do not want gays in the military, and I for one
agree on the prohibition, is fear.   But not of sexual passes, or rape,
most soldiers ought to be able to defend themselves.  The fear is of
failure.  Will this guy next to me in the foxhole lose it when the shit
hits the fan?  A straight soldier is really afraid guy that an admittedly 
gay soldier will let him and every one else down.  That is the question that 
will go through each soldier's mind if they are forced to accept gays.

Many gays say that it is a life-style choice.  Some activists are saying
its biological, that they have no choice in being gay or straight.  There
is some gay doctor in the UK that thinks he has isolated a gene that causes
homosexuality.  Personally, I have idea which is right, maybe both, maybe
neither.  But look at what this says to a straight soldier who might have
to rely on a gay soldier for his life.

If it is a choice, then it seems like a gay doesn't have sufficient
will-power to overcome his sexual urges to go straight, which is the
natural sexual choice.  If true, then will he have sufficient will-power to 
overcome his fear amidst the horror and destruction of a battle-field and do 
his job?  I think not.

If it is biological, then what other biological deficincies might a gay
soldier have?  Deficiencis that may or may not prevent him fulfilling his
job.  Do I want to take chance and bet my life on it?  I think not.

The opinions and feelings of straight soldiers are extremely important when
deciding about gays in the military.  It is easy to say, "Well, they're the
bigots and homophobes for not treating gays equally."  In fact, whether or
not they are bigots or homophobes is immatterial.  The real question is can
a straight soldier "learn"--not forced just by Executive Order--to trust
the gay soldier next to him.  If you did try to force a soldier to trust
openly gay soldiers, you would see a majority of the soldiers leave ASAP, 
gutting of our national defence capability.  They just wouldn't want to
stake their lives on it.  Is such a gutting of our defence forces worth
fulfilling a political promise for what is clearly minor minority.
Afterall, serving in the military is a privilege, not a right, as well as a
duty in times of national emergency.

As a point of fact, this issue of fear and trust is not limited to gays.  A
couple of years ago, 48 hours spent 2 days in the Fulda Gap, Germany
expected site of WWIII.  While women were present in comm sites and staging 
areas, they were not in the forward deployed tank units.  The reporter asked 
two sets of M1 crews what they thought about having women in their crews.  To 
a man they all said "No way!", reasoning its too tough, they'd break down and
cry, they didn't think they could handle seeing a dead woman.  Then the 1st
Sergeant spoke up.  A grizzled black veteran of two tours in Vietnam.
To paraphrase him, "Sure.  I known women soldiers that could wup any of
your ***.  Tough as any man.  As long as they meet the same physical 
requirements as the guys, get the same training, I got no problem treating
them as an equal."  Clearly the Sergeant was the exception, but because of
life experiences he felt comfortable in trusting a woman.  The other
soldiers, in their early twenties didn't have such life experiences to make
their decisions by.

To force a openly gay soldier into the midst of a squad would be no
different then shoving a woman onto that group of tankers.  The level of
ridicule and derision that a gay soldier would suffer would be extensive.  
And again, it's easy to say "Well, they could report such hazing to their
superior officer."  To the squad, that would just tell them that if the
gays--and it would be applied to all gays--can't handle hazing without
crying to mommy, there is no way they can handle themselves when the
bullets fly.  

To a soldier, there is nothing worse than a coward.  Every soldier is
scared, sometimes literally shitless, but he NEVER, EVER lets that fear
paralyze him from action, especially if such action separates his buddies
from life and death.  A coward does let such fear paralyze him, a coward
does run when things get tough, a coward does let down his buddies.  And
there is absolutely nothing more terrifying war.  No matter what kind of a 
hazing a gay soldier could receive, real war is 10 times worse.

So don't think that legislated solutions about better sexual harassment
laws in the military, better reporting, etc are going to work to stop gays
from seducing 18 year old boys, or gays having the shit kicked out them by
10 200+ lbs men with to much testosterone.  Because to cry and whine over
bahaviour like this just means you can't hack it when the balloon goes up.

Lastly, I'm not saying that I personnally agree with this mentality,
promote it, or am abhorred by it.  Only that this is the way things really
are, and have been for thousands of years.  Look how long it took to
integrate blacks into the military, and even then, the level of abuse blacks
were subjected to and to a point tolerated is staggering.  Because to cry out 
meant they weren't tough enough.  Like it or not, that's the way it was, and 
is.  The movie Taps has a poignent example of this.

But like all things, if it is wrong, it will not stand in the face of time.
Perhaps when this age passes into another, gay soldier will have the
opportunity to earn the trust of straight soldiers, just as women are still
trying to earn the trust of male soldiers, and as black soldiers DID earn
the trust of white soldiers.  It takes time.  And no amount of legislation
or executive orders can automatically change people over night.

Oh, and for the record, I have gay friends, have been approached by gay
males--turned them down of course--and didn't bash their heads in.  The gay
lifestyle simply has no interest to me.  So no one try the homophobe bit on
me.  In the civilian world, I don't really care what gays do.  A gay man
could be high school gym teacher for all I cared, as long as he didn't try
to influence the sexual choices of his students (that is espousing a gay
lifestyle as equal or superior to a hetro, I didn't give my school
permission for such curriculum, and he damn well better not do it on his
own)  To me, a gay teacher seducing a student is just as abhorrent as a
straight teacher seducing a student of the opposite sex.

But when it comes to military, we're not talking about civilians with
uniforms, were talking about a whole different world.  Where death is quick
and violent, where people pay for mistakes with their lives.  There were
700 in the line of dutys deaths last year for the DoD.  Name another
business of any size lists employee deaths as part of its annual report.  And 
while gays may not have to get along with their co-workers, in the military 
lives depend on everyone working together.

I'm sorry, but this is a situation where clearly the costs out wiegh the
benefits (which as yet I haven't heard anyone address).

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space