From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
     <1992Dec12.063713.14516@anasazi.com>
     <1992Dec12.173933.13721@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:11:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.063713.14516@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
john@anasazi.com writes:
>]>It has been mentioned many times on
>]>this thread, and ignored by so many progaysinmilitary types, that the
>]>proper analogy has to do with women in the military, not blacks. 

>]In some ways, yes...in others, no.   The reasons being put forward for
>]excluding gays are much more similar to (and just as invalid as) those
used
>]to exclude blacks.  

>Nice of you to postulate their invalidity, but why not try to prove it.
>In the following sentence you admit that they are similar to other
>reasons that are used to force segregation of women, but you don't claim
>that that segregation is invalid. Which is it?

We've been over this, John.  The reasons for excluding gays primarily
involve the unwillingness of some current servicepeople to associate with
them.  This is much more like the race issue than the sex issue.  

>]But, I hear you say, the difficulties =are= the reasons.  Nobody is
saying
>]that it will be easy, or without shortterm impact.  However, if the
>]military's sole reason for perpetuating this archaic prejudice is that
it
>]won't be easy, then (...oops, this is how I ended my other paragraph).

>If it will be disruptive, and it won't improve the force, why do it?
>I repeat my assertion that the purpose of the military is to wreck things
>and kill people. This social engineering seems ill fitted to that
purpose.

I have contended, and continue to maintain, that by selecting, based on
individual merit, from the largest available population, you attain the
best possible fighting force.  That is how the military will be
=improved=.

>]>Note
>]>that the military had to make substantial changes in order to
accomodate
>]>women, but still does not grant them "equal rights"  for example, to
>]>serve in ground combat.  Why can't you compare the situation to that. 

>]Probably because many feel, as I do, that there are women as qualified
>](sometimes =more= qualified) to be ground combatants as many who
currently
>]so serve.  However, they are excluded =solely= because they are women. 
For
>]example, in spite of the Air Force's own findings that women appear to
make
>]better combat fighter pilots, they are still completely excluded from
that
>]duty.  So don't try to justify one injustice by citing another.

>Notice how he slyly sequeues from women as ground combatants (my point)
>to women as fighter pilots (unrelated issue)! Try again. 

The point was that women are excluded from =all= combat roles, even when
that exclusion flies in the face of reason.

>]>The
>]>military, under pressure, admitted women into many more areas than they
>]>used to serve in. In order to do so, they suffered additional
expenditures,
>]>and documented (in the gulf war) loss of efficiency. 
>]
>]There were both documented losses and improvements in efficiency
>]attributable to the presence of women.  When presented with =any= new
and
>]different resource, it is not the least bit surprising that they would
not
>]immediately be able to put it to the best possible use and integrate it
into
>]the system perfectly.  Eventually, they will, unless we allow them to to
>]continue to operate based on prejudice rather than reality.
>
>Please tell me which combat efficiency increased with the presence of
>women? I would agree that since women compose 50% of the available labor
>pool, opening up jobs to them in appropriate areas could be helpful.
>The same logic does not apply to gays. There are not enough of them
>to sway the statistics.

I'll have to do some research to answer the first question.  With regard
to gays, the policy needs to include =everybody= without applicable
disabilities to be consistance.

>]>Now you want to make
>]>an even more radical change? And compare it to civil rights? If you
want
>]>to do it, why not address the consequences, instead of continuing to
spout
>]>"equal rights?" 
>]
>]The predicted consequences have been =repeatedly= addressed and
reasonably
>]dealt with, in this forum and elsewhere.
>No, they have not. They have either been dismissed as unimportant or have
>been ignored.
>
>]>Why not address the question that if we provide separate
>]>sleeping and showering quarters for women, we should also do it for
gays?
>]
>]Sigh.  OK, one more time.  Any ONE of the following should be
sufficient to
>]counter that contention: 1) Gays and straights have =always= shared the
same
>]quarters and showers with no ill effects.  
>Not openly gay people.
>
>2) As soon as enough straights ]realize that gays are not a threat, then 
>nobody will =care= if they are ]showering together.  

It didn't take that long with racial mixing.  And =nirvana= is not a
prerequisite.

>3) Even the genders are separated only as a ](unnecessary, in my
opinion) 
>concession to social morays.  If necessity
>]dictated then that custom could and would be dropped with no negative
>]reprecussions (probably even some surprisingly positive ones, in terms
of
>]morale and comraderie).

>Wow! What an assumption! That they would be dropped with no negative
>repercussions! Amazing that you baldly assert that.

I've seen it happen.  I =know= how easy it is.

>]>By the way, I assume you believe that the government has the right to
>]>ban all abortions, since only a "privacy" right has allowed the court
>]>to prevent that, and you obviously don't give a damn about privacy.

>]THERE'S an Olympic calibre leap of logic, if I ever saw one.  Start a
new
>]thread if you want to pursue that one!  I'd be delighted!

>No, I'm just looking for logical completeness. With your views it is
likely
>that you are "prochoice"  and the legal foundation for the prochoice
>argument is a right to privacy. See the parallel?

Yes, if you apply an entirely different definition of privacy.  Control
of being looked at is a quantum difference from control of what happens
inside your own skin.

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,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality