From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:45:04 GMT

In <1992Dec13.054433.7941@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>In article <grendel.724191093@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>]In <1992Dec12.062222.14183@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]>Dave, my kind of people are already denied this "opportunity" - we are
>]>too old. If age is a valid reason for discrimination, why not sexual
>]>preference? I contend that I would be a better radio operator and
>]>electronics tech than I was in the Navy 25 years ago! But, I'm not
>]>allowed in. Could it be that the military NEEDS to discriminate in
>]>order to operate effectively? Could it be that this same rationale
>]>might apply to sexual preference? Can you deny it?
>]
>]I will.  Age may indeed hamper one's ability to serve in the military.
>]In many instances, I'm sure it makes no difference.  I'm not arguing that
>]age discrimination is right.  But homosexuality doesn't hamper one's
>]performance either, and I'm not talking about Unit Cohesiveness.  The
>]homosexuals who have been discharged from the military have had exemplary
>]records.  If your only argument against gays in the military is that they
>]would cause tension and mistrust, I'd say you don't have much of an argument.

>Very clever. The first thing you do is arbitrarily toss out the issue
>of Unit Cohesiveness, which just happens to be one of the most important
>issues in the discussion. Nice try, but you just can't do that in
>an honest argument.

I don't "arbitrarily toss it out".  I say that, apart from that argument,
there's no reason why gays can't serve just as well.  It looks to me like
Unit Cohesiveness is your only argument against gays.  Is that true?  I'd
like you to answer that question, yes or no.  It would make the discussion
much easier.

>]No organization, not even the military, needs to discriminate arbitrarily
>]to function effectively.  If there is a valid reason why someone is unable
>]to perform military duties, there is a valid reason to bar them from the
>]military; otherwise, it's nothing but prejudice.

>Since you have excluded the ability to get along with people under
>military circumstances (and ability that I claim is lacking in overt
>gays), you can then conclude anything you want. But, you are begging
>the issue and you know it.

"And you know it"?  Uh-HUH.  Are gays less able to perform military duties?
No.  The only argument you've offered is that they would damage morale and
cause dangerous situations to arise.  That's as may be, but if it's true,
who is causing those dangerous situations?  Not the gays, but the people who
are reacting to the gays.  The gays are fine, aren't they?  They do the work
they're supposed to, right?  It's the homophobes who can't deal with gays,
who cause the weakening of morale.  You're misplacing the source of the problem.

>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

--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Newspapers screamed for blood...
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     it was the best of times."
Squid Power                              --Sting

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11929 alt.politics.clinton:18879 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10460 alt.politics.bush:14749