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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:12:08 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <grendel.724269152@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
]<heavy sigh>  John, all I was doing was trying to get you to be more explicit.
]You stated that some friends of yours died in the military during peacetime.
]If you're going to offer such personal experiences as justification for your
]arguments, you should expect me to ask questions about them.  What were the
]circumstances of their death?  I ask because the original point of this part
]of the discussion was the differences in law enforcement within the military.

Okay, now you ask the specific questions. To be TECHNICALLY correct, it
was not during peacetime, since it was during the Vietnam war. However,
they were killed in non-combat and non-combat-support activites - to
wit - they were killed in training. One was killed flying a high performance
fighter. A number were killed in P-3 aircraft crashes. As a P-3 crewman
myself, I can tell you that unit cohesiveness counts a lot while
flying in one, not to mention how important it is with aircraft
maintenance. Do you want to use a parachute packed in a riggers shop where
sexual tensions have led to great anger at the shop chief? 

The military spends a lot of time training, and they do it under some
nasty conditions (you would have loved Survival, Evasion, Resistance
and Escape school), with nasty toys (such as aircraft carriers, etc).
My unit trained with live rockets and bombs, for example.

This is not a flame, but why are you asking about law enforcement within the 
military?

]>No, it is a place that needs to be left alone to do the job required
]>of it's members without disruption and additional danger. Frankly, I have
]>yet to be convinced that the attitude of not wanting to sleep or shower
]>with gays is wrong.
]
]So now we come down to brass tacks.  After all these rhetoricals and
]hypotheticals, what is really underlying all your objections is that you
]just don't like fags, is that it?  You don't see anything wrong with
]homophobia?  You don't see any reason why it should be dealt with?
]This is what it's really about, I think, not "Unit Cohesiveness".

Geez, don't you read anything? Let us address your nonsense one sentence
at a time:
  (1) I do not dislike homosexuals, although I am getting increasingly annoyed
      with the homoPHILES in this discussion.  Furthermore, even if I did it 
      would not detract from the reasoning given. Why do I have to assert,
      about once a day on this net, that I don't dislike "fags"? Isn't it
      possible to hold a principled position without hate or phobia
      in the background? Should I be calling you a xxxx or something
      because of your positions? Can you understand that the constant
      assertions of homophobia, etc, get old - especially when not
      supported by a shred of evidence?
  (2) Homophobia is a mental illness. It is also, unfortunately, a tag
      that gay activists attach to anyone who opposes any of their
      social agenda. Using that second definition, no, I see nothing
      wrong with much of what is characterized as "homophobia."  It is
      a politically correct term for opposition to extreme gay rights
      positions.
  (3) No, it IS about Unit Cohesiveness and privacy rights. Why is it
      that whenever the homophiles are backed into a logical corner, they 
      resort to a combination of mind reading and name calling? 

]>You obviously just don't understand how crew cohesiveness works. If it
]>is screwed up during non-combat situations, it doesn't miraculously
]>get better under stress.
]
]Gee, how many times have you used this argument as an attempt to forestall
]further discussion?  I'm having trouble keeping track.  "You just don't
]understand.  You weren't there.  Reality is different in the military.
]No use trying to explain it to you, you'd just twist it to your own foul
]ends."  Please.  Try again.

I am indeed getting a little tired of explaining human nature to people
who are blind to it. Unit Cohesiveness, as ANYONE who has any military
experience will tell you (try reading about it) is built up throughout
the life of the unit - not just in combat. If it is screwed up before
one goes into a life threatening, it often remains screwed up in those
situations. This is just like in other jobs, except the military is
much more intense and much more dangerous. 

Why do you think that the military spends so much effort on morale and 
discipline and teamwork training?

Yes, it is clear from your postings that you do not understand and that
you weren't there. Why should I accept your prescriptions for social
engineering in the military when you obviously know nothing about military
operations? You don't have to have been there to get some of that info -
go read a book on military leadership sometime.

]>]is that soldiers of any orientation be allowed to serve if they so choose.
]
]>(1) Gays don't have to be attracted by all men for this argument to hold
]
]So why do you assume a gay man is going to find you attractive?

I don't. As I have said before, this isn't personal. I would not react
with violence to a pass from a gay man - unlike many in the military
and at least one who posted to this discussion.

]>(2) The fact that the military's purpose is not sex is irrelevant.
]
]It is?
It isn't.

]>(3) How do YOU know gays wouldn't enter the military to get sex?
]
]Of all the ways to get sex...boot camp, indoctrination, all the training and
]hard work, the possibility of battle, and to top it, working with people who
](as you admit) generally find gays distasteful.  How do I know?  Ummmm....

Hey, boot camp, etc, is S&M. If you are gay and into S&M, it's gotta be
a wonderful place. 

Since you admit that these people find gays distasteful (I didn't
have to admit it - I know it from personal observation), why do you want
to force gays upon them?

]>(4) The fact that gay soldiers would be in intimate surroundings with
]>straight soldiers is hardly incidental.... it is the who issue, as you
]>must by now realize.
]
]Your issue, perhaps.  I was under the impression that the issue was whether
]or not barring gays from the military was a violation of their rights.  Call
]me crazy.

Well, first of all, please find for me, either in the constitution or
in writings on natural rights, where it is a "right" to serve in the
military? After you give up on that, but assert it anyway, please explain
why that "right" exists, and why it applies to gays but not to
old folks? 

Don't give me the argument that old folks can't perform the
duties - after all, if one is already in the military, one isn't thrown
out at 35, but one cannot join after 35. If you are hung up on rights,
presumably you believe that that rule should be changed also!

Finally, please explain how a constitutional right to privacy exists (at
least in the fevered imaginations of our supreme court) but can be
ignored in this case.

]>(5) The purpose of the military is not sex, but it is also not a place
]>to allow soldiers "of any orientation" to be "allowed" anything.... it is
]>an organization whose purpose is killing people and breaking things, not
]>"allowing" anyone "to serve if they so choose."
]
]It's a volunteer citizen's army.  A gay can rape, kill, pillage and burn
]just as well as any straight soldier.  If the military were not aware that
]a young man was homosexual, they would force him to register for the draft
]and, in the event of a draft, would take him along with anyone else.  It's
]only when the young man stops lying about his identity that there'd be 
]trouble.

Yes, that is when there is trouble - when the gay is open. You seem to believe
that there is something wrong with this, but the fact is that the gay,
if overt or open about it, is much more of a problem to his unit-mates
than the closet-gay.

]>]>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?
]>]
]>]John, do you even read this newsgroup, or do you just post?  I find it hard
]>]to believe you haven't seen this argument advanced and refuted about _ten_
]>]thousand times.  I can't believe you're actually taking this tired old tack.
]
]>And I can't believe that you are once again missing my point! Did I ever
]>say that child molesters or rapists ARE the same as homosexuals? Hell no...
]>I am just pointing out that a simple assertion of equal rights clearly
]>doesn't apply to everyone - in this case.... child molesters and rapists.
]
]Well, DUH, because child molesters and rapists are *criminals*, unlike gays.
]Right?  We in agreement here?  Argue rhetorically much?

Gays in the military are criminals. Gays who practice sodomy are criminals
in many states. Nice try. I'm sure you'll now tell me that they shouldn't
be criminals. Unrelated issue.

]>]No, child molesters and rapists are not the same as homosexuals.  The fact
]>]that their sexual practices are against social norms is completely irrelevant.
]>]Molestation and rape are crimes, because unlike homosexuality, they involve
]>]the deprivation of rights of one of the parties involved.  Gay sex, for the
]>]most part, takes place between two consenting adults.  No one gets hurt.
]>]There's nothing wrong with it.  Nobody suffers any ill effects.  Are you
]>]telling me you don't see any difference between that and rape?
]
]>Geez... try to read what I write!
]	
]Care to answer my question?

What question? I see only a rhetorical question on an unrelated topic.
However, to make you feel better, I'll pick a non-criminal example.
Instead of child molesters, let me use old folks. Now, can you deal with
that?

]>]Because equal rights is what this country is all about.  It is sadly ironic
]>]that our military, supposedly that organization which is designed to fight
]>]to preserve the freedoms of this country, does not observe them.
]
]>It is ivory tower to the max to apply this sort of logic.
]
]Another of your all-purpose End Of Conversation sentences goes into effect...

Tough bananas.
]
]>]>[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?
]>]	
]>]And Disneyland is a different place from CNN, yet people work in both places
]>]and get paid in both places and take risks in both places.  So what?
]
]>So what? Don't you see the difference between Disneyland and the military?
]	
]I do.  Again I ask, so what?  Every job is different, every job has its
]peculiarities.

Yes, and as a result every job has different requirements. Airlines don't
hire blind people, and the military shouldn't hire gays.
]
]>No! No! No! The military is NOT a job like anything else. Name ONE job
]>that is non military that it is against the law to quit! Name ONE job
]>where the penalty for refusing to obey orders is either criminal sanctions
]>or instant execution!  I am amazed that you cannot tell the difference!
]>The  military is the only job I know of that requires one to surrender
]>basic human rights as a condition of employment, with NO way to change
]>your mind later.
]
]That's the nature of effective warfare, which is the military's purpose.
]And Citibank's purpose is effective business.  So what?  Both are jobs.
]You go to work there, you get money for working.  The longer you work,
]the more money you get.  Job.

Why do I even bother.... I just told you the difference and you cling
only to the similarity ("both are jobs"). Look... as long as you continue
to cling to this "it's only a job" line, everyone who knows better
is going to think you a fool. The military IS different. It is demonstrably
and legally different. If you cannot recognize that, further discussion
is probably pointless.

]]Nice try. Every one of your posts shows a determined ignorance of the 
]]difference between military life and anything else. Even this last sentence
]]of yours, comparing Cracker Barrel to the military, shows this arrogant
]]disregard for the fundamental differences.
]
]I only compare Cracker Barrel to the military because both discriminate
]against gays.  I've never worked for the former; this doesn't change the fact
]that discrimination against gays, just like discrimination against women,
]blacks, or any other such group, is a violation of equal rights.  Likewise,
]I've never worked for the latter; this doesn't change the fact that
]discrimination is still wrong.
]
]Every one of your posts shows condescension toward those who have not served
]in the military, as if they somehow don't have a full grasp of the issue.

No, only towards those who are DETERMINED to remain ignorant, and who
are unwilling to listen to the FACTUAL parts of the arguments presented
by those who are less ignorant. You don't have to be in the military
to get a lot of the information you have failed to get, although it
helps to get an intuitive feel to go with the information. It is totally
clear to me that you do not have a full grasp of the issue, and the
reason is your failure to appreciate the living and working conditions
of the military, and how that makes it different from just some job.
With the information given in this thread, and a tiny amount of
imagination, you should be able to get enough of a feel for the military
to stop some of your sillier assertions.

]No doubt experience in the military teaches one a great deal, but this
]doesn't exclude those who have not served from discussion.  You continually
]use this as an excuse to stop discussion, and it's simply not good enough.
]If there's such a great difference between military reality and reality
]outside of the military, it behooves you to explain what this is.

I have tried. I have tried. I have tried. You wave away the arguments
over and over again, and then proceed to post things that anyone who
had served in the military knows are complete folly. Since you now have
the relevant information from the many posts in this group, you too would
know they were folly (without having served) if you bothered with anything
other than a bull-headed focus on "rights" in some vacuum unimpeded by
reality.

Is this an ad-hominem attack - damned right... but not nearly as nasty
as the continuous questioning of my feelings, and labeling me a homophobe,
that you and others in this discussion do whenever you are backed into
a logical corner.


-- 
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 of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality