From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:07:28 GMT
     <1992Dec10.181122.25797@anasazi.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec10.163550.24021@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
john@anasazi.com writes:
>]This does not prove your point that there are potentially more cases
>]of sexual harassment by homosexuals than by heterosexuals.  You need
>]to look at all the cases of sexual harassment to conclude this.
>
>But that was NOT my point. My point is that with homosexuals in the
military,
>there will be more cases of sexual harassment than without, because there
>will be more opportunity.
>
>]> and there are lots
>]> of cases of heterosexual harassment (remember "tailhook"?).
>]
>]So your assumption here is that homosexuals should be banned from the
>]military because heterosexuals have been unable to control their
>]sexual attractions.  I think this is an unfair conclusion. 
>
>No. As I have argued before, the actual cases of sexual harrassment are
>a side issue compared to the perceived lack of privacy that heterosexuals
>will feel. 
>]
>]Homosexuals are not responsible for some heterosexuals being unable to
>]control their sexual attractions, and as in the case of tailhook
>]homosexuals as a group should not be discriminated against because a
>]group of men sexually harrassed a group of women.
>So what?
>]
>]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. This will happen a lot to gays, and likewise
>there will be a lot of complaints of gay bashing. All of this will simply
>add to distrust and fear between members of the military, and THAT
>is seriously detrimental to the military. Better to avoid the problem
>in the first place by sexual preference segregation.
>
>]I'll also contend that since homosexuals are already in the military,
>]that lifting the ban on homosexuals will not significantly increase
>]the numbers of homosexuals in the military or increase the cases of
>]sexual harassment by homosexuals.  If anything, it seems to me that
>]an "out" homosexual is the least likely person to harass anyone,
>]especially with everyone constantly watching.  
>
>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
>screams of "gay bashing" will be heard throughout the land. Careers of
>military folks will be destroyed right and left.
>
>One of the problems with using legal means for social engineering is
>that it leads to excesses. All of a sudden ordinary human interactions can 
>suddenly come under the microscope in a courtroom, and this causes people
>to be more careful and suspicious of each other... exactly what the
military 
>does not need!
>

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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh