From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Rush has no opinion??? (re: Gays in the Military)
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:39:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.162216.9736@den.mmc.com> John Sims,
sims@possum.den.mmc.com writes:
>Try being a military member these days and expecting to
>be promoted just based on experience.  Promotions are awarded based on
>performance, experience, and education, but military and civilian.
>That's right!  The military does study the art of war, and it is taught
>to officers and enlisted.  And even if promotions were given out based
>soley on field experience, doesn't it make sense that they would be
>given to the folks who did the best, ie won the most engagements with
>fewest casualties?  In short, the ones who knew best how to effectively
>work in the military?  You really sell the military leadership short on
>common sense, there.

Perhaps I did overstate by implication the role of field duty to
promotion.  I was trying to understand the military's unwillingness to
publicly defend their position on gays.  It was the most rational
explanation I could come up with.  Now I'm at a loss for one.

>>Most people are more than happy to leave the military to it's own
devices. 
>>However, when it's policies are aggravating problems that are being
felt in
>>the society at large, it is fair to expect them to either defend those
>>policies or change them.

>OK Greg, so just how is the military ban on homosexuals aggravating
>problems being felt in society at large?  Because a small minority of
>people have been discharged in accordance with established legal
>policies of the military?  Boy, do we have a frail society.

A portion of our society is bent on discriminating against, and sometimes
even actively persecuting an admittedly small subset of that society. 
They are doing so completely arbitrarily and without any moral or ethical
justification.  This is contrary to the basic priciples that our "free"
society.  When we allow this to continue, we erode those principles. 
When we allow our government to do so, we have abandoned them.  A "free"
society that does not rise up against such forms of injustice may not be 
frail, but it is certainly misnamed.

>>I suppose I'd feel more comfortable with the policy if they were
willing to
>>debate the issue publicly.  What little I've heard from the brass is a
>>superficial version of what has been presented in this forum (basically
that
>>"it would undermine morale").  This argument has been run up and down on
>>this forum and simply hasn't stood up to scrutiny.

>But that argument has been proven in the battlefield, where lives are at
>stake.  But then, the battlefield isn't the ivory tower, where reality
>can be dismissed with the wave of a hand.

One thing that has been proved in the battlefield is that gays make just
as good a soldiers as straights.  Another is that bigots are disruptive
and are a detriment to military efficiency.

I'd like to know just what other "arguments" relevant to this discussion
have been "proved in the battlefield" and how?

>>Perhaps the best thing about Clinton's "threat" to lift the ban by
executive
>>order is that it might just force the brass to enter the public debate
and
>>share just what aspect of their "thousands of years of experience and
>>wisdom" justifies a policy that is widely seen to be detrimental to
=both=
>>the military and society at large.  

>Again, Greg, show me how the ban on homosexuals has been detrimental to
>the military and society.  Nice sounding words, but I don't recall any
>unit's performance and being lacking due to the absence of homosexuals.

The fact that I can't prove a negative statement doesn't help your case. 
Besides, the ban has been ineffective, except in cases where gays have
put their careers on the line to make a point.  Those gallant men and
women prove the value of gays in the military far better than any
argument I could make.

>>I think the public can be swayed on the
>>issue if a rational, defensible argument is presented.  I know =I=
could.

>Apparently, you haven't be listening to the news lately.  Public support
>for homosexuals has been declining, in spite of the attempts of the
>media.

Public opinion does tend to drift... in both directions.  I understand
there was a recent Newsweek poll that indicates a continuing trend
towards acceptance, but that the rate of change has slowed considerably.

Still, I'd be that last to maintain that military, or any social policy
should be based on public opinion.  They should be based on rational
thought and study.

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.politics.clinton