From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:18:40 GMT

In article <nate.956@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>>briand@anasazi.com writes:

[stuff deleted]
>
>>>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.
>
>    This is a strong point. One of the most emminent Victorian era British 
>soldiers, Sir Garnet Wolseley, suffered from a couple of disabilities. He 
>had a pronounced limp from a wound suffered in Burma, and in the Crimea 
>he was badly wounded by and exploding shell which took away the sight in 
>one eye. Practically all of Wolseley's accomplishments happened years 
>after he received his debilitating wounds, so apparently the soldiers 
>who served under him managed to deal successfully with Wolseley's 
>"biological deficiencies".

A very good counter-argument, however, Wolseley had injuries.  And while
such injuries today would mean an honorable discharge for an enlisted
soldier, and retirement for an officer, they were clearly more the norm in
the Victorian age.  As an executive officer, these injuries did not prevent
Wolsely from performing his duties.

If homosexuality is biological, and clearly the jury is a long ways from
any verdict, we are talking about a biological conditions that manifests
itself through behaviour.  That would be more akin to schetzophrenia or
manic depression than it would war injuries such as Wolesely's.  Such
disorders that are 1, chemically related and 2, treatable are grounds for
discharge in the military.  If it turns out homosexuality is biological why
should it be exempt, granted that its manifestation is much milder.

>>> Is such a gutting of our defence forces worth
>>>fulfilling a political promise for what is clearly minor minority.
>
>    No, but it's not immediately clear that allowing homosexuals to serve  
>would "gut" the military. 

So far, most "soldier in the street" interviews showed that a sizeable
percentage of the military would get out at the first opportunity.  And all
should remember soldiers can't just up and quit.  Their rights to freedom
of association have been stripped, just as a homosexuals have currently
been.  (BTW, I think gays that have been discharged should have status
upgraded from general to honorable.  Anything less than honorable is
considered a black mark).

[deleted stuff]

>
>    Careful with your assumptions there, Greg. My reading of Brian's 
>paragraph is not that it was a bad idea to integrate blacks but rather 
>that it was a long and painful process. There's no reason to suspect that 
>the process will be any less painful or disruptive for gays, 

BINGO!!

[remainder deleted]

>
>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh