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
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:49:19 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec15.101150.24440@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
]In article <1992Dec12.063713.14516@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
]>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.  

Why is that? How about the unwillingness of some current servicepeople
to share beds and showers and foxholes with members of the opposite
sex? We accomodate that with segregation. Why not do it with gays?
WHAT exactly is the relevant difference?
>
>>]But, I hear you say, the difficulties =are= the reasons.  Nobody is

]>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=.

Okay, and I'll continue to maintain that one's avowed and open sexual
preference modifies one's effectiveness in the REAL WORLD, EXISTING
military, and thus is a valid factor in discriminating between
candidates for service.

]>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.

That, I would point out, is about to change. I think we will shortly
see women as combat pilots and aircrewmen but not ground combat
soldiers. Makes sense to me.

]>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.
Huh? Include everyone without applicable disabilities (which I claim
avowed homosexual behavior is)? Why?

[...with regard to dropping segregation by sex...]
]I've seen it happen.  I =know= how easy it is.
In the military?

]>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.

Control of being looked at at intimate times is still significant. In
fact, one of the techniques used to break prisoners' spirits is to
watch them all the time, when they are asleep, when they are eating,
and when they are going to the bathroom.

-- 
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
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh