From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:17:58 GMT

In <1992Dec9.195705.14181@brtph560.bnr.ca> chrisf@brtph316.bnr.ca (Chris Fulmer) writes:

>One thing which is apparent is that there is a significant
>amount of disagreement with regard to allowing homosexuals 
>in the military.  One of the arguments against is "Unit 
>Cohesiveness," which more-or-less implies that a homosexual
>soldier is significantly more likely to get left on the
>battlefield, shot by his fellow soldiers, etc....

Not necessarily.  Homosexual soldiers would only be victimized by homophobic
soldiers.  Those homophobic soldiers who victimize homosexual soldiers would
be punished for it.

If there were a platoon of soldiers in which were two homosexuals, and this
platoon were out fighting in a foreign country, the intelligent heterosexuals,
regardless of their feelings toward homosexuality, would reason: there is no
way I can get these gays out of the platoon; I am involved in a life-or-death
situation, and without unit cohesion we are all at risk; therefore, I will
treat these gays just like everyone else so that we don't get killed.

>It seems to me that because of that line of reasoning,
>the military is not yet ready to be integrated.  I expect
>that if you were to have full integration and immediately
>have a war, then a significant number of the gays would be
>killed in the above situations.  And, that's not something
>that we want to risk.

Who's "we"?  The army is a volunteer organization.  If a gay is in the army,
it's because he or she wants to be.  They're willing to risk their lives to
serve their country.

>Instead, the gay-rights people should try to integrate
>the rest of society, to the effect that a soldier,
>upin entering the military, wouldn't think twice about
>serving with a gay man.

Nice idea, and I'm all for it, but unfortunately it's an improbable task.
"Integrating society" isn't something that can be done without an enormous
consensus.  Look at racial integration: how long did it take _that_ to work?
Some would argue (not me) that blacks _still_ aren't fully integrated.

>I guess what I'm trying to say is that the military is
>absolutely the wrong place for social experiments.  Start
>in the General Accounting Office or something where people
>don't get killed if you're wrong.

If something is unjust, why wait to rectify the situation?

People already get killed in the military.  That's what war is all about.
When the military is not at war, there's no reason for anyone to get killed.
The military is a good place to start integration because it is a rigidly
controlled environment.  This isn't a "social experiment"; it's the
implementation of equal rights.  BTW, most places _do_ employ gays; the
military is an exception to the rule in our society.  Time to catch up.


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

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11765 alt.politics.clinton:18766 alt.politics.bush:14626 alt.politics.homosexuality:8046 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10265