From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.225152.23861@anasazi.com> Brian Douglass,
briand@anasazi.com writes:
>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.

This implies a belief that homosexuality implies cowardice.  It was once
widely believed that blacks were cowardly.  The misapprehension about
gays will evaporate as quickly as that against blacks.

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

There are too many flawed assumptions in this argument to even =try= to
address in a structured manner.  Since I believe that sexual orientation
is, by definition, =not= a choice, I will focus on the other half of this
attempted Catch 22.

>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.

Implicit in this argument is the idea that, if a person has one
"biological deficiency" that is unrelated to their ability to perform,
then that person =may= have others that =do= impact their performance. 
Each person in the world is equally "likely" to have "deficiencies".  We
all have some... nobody is perfect.  Homosexuality is no more an
indicator of ability to perform than is premature baldness.  This, of
course, does not even address the unsupported assumption that
homosexuality is a "deficiency" to begin with.

>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 Orderto 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.

The feelings of straight soldiers are =exactly= as important with regard
to admitting gays as are the feelings of racist soldiers with regards to
admitting blacks (or hispanics, or orientals, or whatever).

>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.

This suggests that the "inexperienced" soldiers' experience is more
worthy of enforcing at a policy level than that of the Sargent.

>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.  

In the final analysis, the only way to overcome irrational fear or
bigotry is by demonstration and example.  Sure, a gays may have to endure
some hazint, and few hard headed bigots may have to have some sense
beaten into them.  That's how it was with blacks, and I don't expect this
scenario to play itself out much differently.  However, would you argue
that this would have been sufficient to justify keeping blacks out?

>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.

Those 10 gaybasher are just as likely to have the shit beat out of them
(probably one at a time) by others (gay and/or straight) who don't take
kindly to seeing their friends' ass kicked for no good reason.

You seem to have a really warped stereotypical view of what homosexuals
are like.  Other than their preference for sex partners, they are =just=
like everybody else!  Some are heroes and some are cowards, some are
wimps and some are tough as nails.

>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.

So, are you suggesting that integrating blacks a bad idea?

>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.

Yes, it =will= take time.  And the prejudices will not go away until gays
have had the chance to prove just how hollow and unfounded they are.

>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).

OK, but consider these costs, as well:
   1) A military leadership with no sense of justice and ethics is a
serious potential danger to everybody, including the society it is
supposed to be protecting.
   2) A society which tolerates discrimination against a minority with no
rational reason is inconsisitant with our country's moral and ethical
principles.
   
and these benefits:
   1) A military which selects it's soldiers from the largest available
population and uses each individual's abilities to their best application
is the best available force.
   2) A soldier who knows how to assess a situation (including a person)
strictly on the facts, without regard to irrelevant prejudices, is a
better, more effective soldier.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh