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
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:05:00 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec11.152349.28124@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
]In article <1992Dec10.163550.24021@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
]>]Do you not believe that as long as the military fairly and
]>]consistently cracks down on sexual harassment (both heterosexual and
]>]homosexual cases) that the number of incidents will decrease over time?
]>
]>Yes, at CONSIDERABLE expense of unit morale. Cracking down on sexual
]>harassment almost always leads to excesses, where people make false
]>claims of sexual harassment.
]
]Egad... I hope you didn't mean that the way is came out.  The original point
]was that =all= cases of sexual harassment must be dealt with firmly and
]justly.  To suggest that doing so reduces morale implies that it is better
]to let it go unpunished.
In today's poisoned atmosphere of political correctness, the more opportunities
there are for sexual harrassment, the more FALSE accusations will occur,
with the resulting increase in distrust and conflict.

]=ALL= sexual behavior that is inappropriate to the profession can and must
]be dealt with in a consistent and fair manner.  A failure in =that= regard
]can only lead to a disintegration of =any= semblance of morale.
In combat units, we don't have any significant problem today with sexual 
harrassment because we only have heterosexual (or closet-gay) males.
Could it be that there is a historical reason for this? Could it be that
we shouldn't be  ignoring the long lessons that history teaches about 
relationships between soldiers?

]>Why? The "out" homosexual will be a specially protected species, and
]>complaints against him will likely be ignored because they will be seen as
]>"gay bashing." I can just imagine the outcry in the press and from gay
]>activist groups the first time a gay is accused of sexual harassment.
]
]The same arguments were used regarding "racial harassment".  The military is
]dealing with such cases reasonably well.  I think they could do as well in
]this case.
No, they were not. When the military was integrated, blacks were not
made a specially protected species. It is only in todays intolerant
PC world that charges of non-PC harassment are used to harass people.

]Also, the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" argument is wearing
]pretty thin around here.  It shows a great deal more fear than reason on the
]part of the presenter.  Nobody has yet brought up "special rights", except
]those opposed to equal rights.  It is a straw man argument.  Stick to the
]issues.
It is NOT a straw man argument, because the admission of gays will REQUIRE
special rights, and the history of modern civil rights enforcement
shows this clearly. Blacks went from being people that shouldn't be
discriminated against to people who often could not be fired or flunked
because of their special status. Gays in the military would be protected
by such radical groups as ACT-UP who would do their best to smear anyone
accused of gay-harassment - without regard for the guilt or innocence
of that person.

Do you really think that a gigantic bureaucracy like the military can
implement a gay-integration policy without such sorts of special treatment?
If so, you exhibit a typical liberal faith in the benevolence and omnipotence
of bureaucracies. This may be why you so naively view my argument as a
"straw man."
-- 
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
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11817 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10335 alt.politics.clinton:18808 alt.politics.bush:14664 alt.politics.homosexuality:8099