Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:03:45 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military [Jay]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Jay is back and pretty much the same as before, oh yeah, Jay is
back.....  Seriously, an attack on this reasoning is necessary though
it is a hard effort to take -- I tried to stay quiet, but since so
much of this had it wrong, I am forced to speak out.


In article <tfilt461862@drew.edu>, Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
   writes:
> Well, I tried to stay quiet, but so many of you have it wrong, I am
> forced to speak out.

even the best of us can't have _that_ much self-restraint, right?

> Moral arguments about rights and equality are wholly irrelevant.

this is the U.S. with the Declaration of Independence and certain
rights that need to be protected even if large amounts of people
disagree, isn't it?

> The simple truth is that public opinion must precede, not follow,
> any action.  Let me explain why.

did public opinion precede Truman's order on blacks entry to the
military? Now it may not be comparable in most respects, but surely
public opinion still was against blacks.  I guess you would have been
against that too in 1948, but circumstances I think show you would
have been wrong.

> Study after study has examined the amazing fact that men are
> willing to fight and die in battle.  They are unanimous in their
> opinion.  Soldiers do not fight for their flag, their country, their
> president, or the cause of war.  They fight and die for their
> comrades, their buddies, the other members of their unit.  The
> morale, the unit cohesiveness is the primary and paramount
> objective.

oh?  I presume the morality or purpose behind the war in Vietnam and other past
wars of invasion by other countries didn't matter.  I'm sure that
blacks who came into an army made up mostly of people who thought they
were subhuman fought for their unit, not the cause.  Morale and unit
cohesiveness is a primary objective, but I don't agree it is _the_
primary objective.

> homosexuals.  When homosexuals openly enter a unit, the existing
> prejudices of the members of the unit will prevail, resulting in
> violence or a wide range of reactions, all of which will prevent the
> unit from performing its very specialized function.

how many homosexuals will truly _openly_ enter a unit?  Are they
morons?  are homosexuals as a class less apt to be good soldiers?
Those who join will and must want damn much to be in the military if
they are going to enter with all the prejudices, just as women and
blacks did.  The order to lift the ban will let homosexuals not be
kept from the military, but those who stay will be smart enough to
keep their sexuality quiet.  You have a hell of a nerve to think
homosexual soldiers are some mutants that will openly flaunt their
sexuality and ruin morale and unit cohesivity.

> wrong-headed.  But, and this is the important thing, these
> prejudices and fears exist, and cannot be changed by executive
> order or an act of congress.  The successful introduction of open
> homosexuality in the military can only follow a major change of
> attitudes by those in the military.  It cannot precede it.

how did blacks and women get in?  how can military attitudes change if
no homosexuals are there? what incentive or manner can that be done?

> President Clinton, whose military experience is well know,

how many people in the defense dept. had similar lack of experience?

> promised during the campaign to follow the advice of experts on
> the military, and area of admitted inexperience.  It is most
> unfortunate that Clinton has chosen to break this promise.

he said he will lift the ban while using advice of experts on how to
do this.

> I think a major point to be considered is the rights of the
> heterosexuals, the often ignored rights of the majority to privacy.

in many other contexts like gyms and sports, privacy appears not to
come up.

> As San Nunn has said, the military is unlike any other occupation.
> There is no privacy from other soldiers.  There is no personal
> space.

women in the Gulf conflict handled this, as a POW wrote in her book

>  Living in the barracks, in the field, in the ship berth,
> inside a tank all force soldiers and sailors together, physically and
> emotionally.

racists have to deal with this.  and 'cept for nudity, what will this
closeness problem lead to?  Like maybe queers will leer at you or
something?  Like perhaps maybe their mental levels are lower than
others or they like abuse.

> familiar with.  Further, there is another right to be considered -
> the rights of Catholics and other religious groups who would be
> forced to leave the military.

maybe work on Sat. also inhibits the rights of Ortodox Jews.

> Lifting the ban will transform the U.S. military, the best military
> known to the history of man, into a latter analogy of the YMCA.

what does this mean?  The YMCA has not been a top gay association to
my knowledge, though they would seem to be open to many of the
objections of letting gays in -- do they have a ban?

> When the music group The Village People sings a new recruitment
> song for the military, it will act as a magnet for homosexuals
> seeking safe-haven, a place where they can be open without fear
> of violence or disapproval, and they know they will find other
> homosexuals.  Is this the reason we want people to enlist?

your stereotypes are revolting, but not very persuavive.

> Another tactic of the homosexual movement is to denounce all
> opposition to Clinton's plan as homophobia and fear.  It is not

like get real here.  People in the military do fear homosexuals; they
think they are not real men who are able to act like soldiers.

> homophobic.  They make clear, as I am attempting to do, that the
> problems with lifting the ban are not personal, but substantive.  It

they are both

> should be remembered that this policy was begun with President
> Carter, who was not only a Democrat, but who served his country

no the ban for homosexuals was around quite longer than since Carter,
though he may have re-established it in some way.  I have no idea his
views about sexuality though his abortion views are not as liberal as
some people might think, either.

> of the military.  The idea that we can introduce homosexuals and
> not introduce homosexual acts into the military is fallacious.

they are already among us -- oh no, look how things have been turned
upside down!
>
> This entire argument does not examine another important
> consideration - that sexual preference is not a characteristic, like
> other Title VII classes.  Expanding civil rights to behavior, not
> characteristic, is a dangerous precedent.

this is very debatable.  As many homosexuals know all too well,
homosexuality isn't something like the preference to have kinky sex.
It is part of their very being that they are attracted to and love
people of their own sex.  Homosexuality is not behavior!  Homosexual
like gender is a personal characteristic.

> Why is it a bad idea?  I have three members of my immediate
> family who are currently active members of the military.  They all

I presume Southern whites said the same thing when blacks got to be
higher than private or servant.

> is sensible.  But if the function of the military is to use force when
> necessary to protect American interests, then Mr. Clinton may
> need to rely upon the military and find it rendered inoperative.
> With the stroke of a pen, Clinton may do what the power of the
> Soviet army could not: destroy the American military.
>

how many here feel the military will break apart with the inclusion of
homosexuals?  Like that lesbian major that was kicked out after a
long honored service was a great threat to us all.
>
> I would like to take a new approach, posting as seldomly as possibile.  Those
> of you who may rejoice a little less than others at my return (KAT, VAL, and
> any other three lettered member of the 'hate jay early' crowd) can facilitate
> this by not provoking me.  You have been warned!!!!

I always wanted to hear your side myself (I have three letters in my
sig. Joe, don't know if this counts, and I came later than these other
people), but not your stereotypes and the like.  Must take the good
with the bad, I guess.  Read me, read my length and poor editing.
Read you, read your side and stereotypes.

> Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
>
> "As originally written, the Constitution was a flawwed document.  I have
> fixed it."                      - Justice Thurgood Marshal, 1909 - 1993
>
don't know if he agrees with this statement or not, but the fact that
slavery was included in the Constitution, makes this rather true.

 -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU