From: tegray@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Thomas E. Gray)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:20:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1993Jan27.021414.2829@odin.corp.sgi.com> mikey@sgi.com writes:
>|> Funny, we were just wondering what you think!  What I mean is, shouldn't you
>|> say first what you think about it before asking us?  But anyway, here is my
>|> opinion.
>
>Based on your opinion, here's mine.  I don't think Blacks should have
>been allowed in the military back in time where the policy changed.
>Those Southerners were sure darn right back then:
>
>Here are some of the problems I see arising.  How would a White male
>feel about sharing the showers with a Black?  How would a Black feel
>about it?  Would there be punishments for Blacks harassing Whites?
>Would the Blacks be safe, considering that WASP-tendencies are pretty
>strong in the military?
>
>The bottom line is: the military's purpose is defence.  Would its efficiency
>be affected by admitting Blacks, because of the problems this would generate?
>Can a country take such a risk with its defence system?
>
>Basically, I agree that Blacks should be admitted in the military.  There is
>even a precedent since women are admitted.  But that's an idealistic measure,
>and I can see the point of those who oppose it.  And maybe the world is just
>not ready for this yet.  Maybe other changes have to come first to prepare
>our society for it.
>
>- M


Mike, this satire fails for two reasons. First, it isn't funny, and
second there is no real analogy to be drawn between the situation that
gays face in a working environment dominated by heterosexuals and the
situation that black men face in an environment dominated by white
men. 

The real questions are sexual ones, and the analogy the original poster
drew between women and gays was a fair one. We all know about the
issues surrounding racial discrimination, and about the issues
surrounding sexual discrimination, but they are not quite the same. 

The question of showers (so often raised these last few days) is not a
joking one. It is not a misunderstanding of a homosexual to believe
that he/she may be aroused by showering with others of the same sex
any more than it is a misunderstanding to believe that heterosexual
men or women may be aroused by showering with people of the opposite
sex. It is the feeling of discomfort (call it "shame" or "modesty" or
what you will) and self-consciousness that arises from nakedness with
those who are sexually attracted to a person that is at issue here. 

If you think about the logical extensions of that discomfort into
various interactions in the military you might very well conclude that
avowed homosexuals in the military would, in fact,  interfere with
the ability of the organization to perform its job. You might conclude
that such a situation would not be detrimental, but you should do so
only after thinking about the real issues involved. Not all
discrimination is the same. 

Please don't forget that the government is in the business of
discriminating, and rightly so. It is the job of the government to
decide who can drink, who can vote, whom one can marry, what is
pornography and what is art, etc. 

Obviously there are issues surrounding gays in the military that are
worth considering seriously. It is a grave disservice to the issue and
the rights of all involved to mindlessly ridicule the debate. 



-- 
Wells S. Hansen
Classics Research
Newsgroups: alt.personals