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
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:20:13 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <YOUNG.92Dec13125039@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
]In article <1992Dec13.054552.8080@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]   In article <YOUNG.92Dec12151134@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
]   ]In article <1992Dec12.062222.14183@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>   ]
]>   ]>   New slogan: Service for Fogies! Let us back into the military! It's
]>   ]>   out right! Discrimination is wrong!
]>   ]
]>   ]If you wanted in so badly, you never should have left in the first
]>   ]place.
]>   Obviously a non-sequitur.
]
]Exactly.  So why do you keep repeating this ridiculous argument about
]age?  Age affects your ability to withstand the rigours of basic
]training.  Homosexuality does not.
Yes, homosexuality does - if the other recruits know that you are
homosexual! And that is my point... it DOES affect you in the military.
The old folks argument raises the following points that are germaine
to the gays in the military argument:

  -the "rights" issue. If rights are the point to the level that we
   must recognize those rights at some expense to the military, then
   old folks should have the right to serve also. And, I would point out,
   they could be accomodated at some expense to the military - just like
   gays (who could be accomodated by segregation)
  -the "quality of service" issue. Old folks arguably would provide
   less service (they may be better at aircraft maintenance, but aren't
   so useful to clean the galley on duty day); so would gays - not because
   of any inherent defect, but because of their effect on the unit. From
   the standpoint of military effectiveness, it makes no difference whether
   the unit is ineffective because an individual lacks physical strength,
   or because that individual has destroyed unit morale. In either case,
   the unit is less effective.
   
]
]John, most of your arguments against deal with the problems of
]everyone but the potential enlistee.  When you start satirizing
]arguments about rights with ageism and rules against blind and
]physically challenged :) individuals, you must then continue by
]showing why the homosexual is in some way incapable of performing the
]necessary duties.  You have never, not once, shown this incapacity, or
]even claimed it, so drop the unrelated arguments.  It does you and
]your 'unit cohesion' theme a disservice.  When you can show a
]difference between cohesion threatened by a homosexual and that
]threatened by an African American, then you may begin to win some
]hearts and minds.  So far, you are still at the starting gate.  Saying
]it over and over makes your argument become just so much noise.

Okay, I'll explain  it again (for about the 3rd time in this thread).
Hets need not fear sexual interest by the African American. They
do fear it from gays. I know that some people will say that gays
won't find hets sexually attractive, but that is utter crap, as indicated
by plenty of unfortunate incidents where gays made passes at hets
who responded violently. It DOES happened. It HAS happened. It will
happen again. It is frightening and anger provoking for many young men, and
that is dangerous to military units. 


-- 
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! - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh