From: SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET (keep the aspidistra flying)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: don't forget to wash behind your ears...
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:49:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Boy, is it great to be back on-line :)

Welcome back, Kerry! :)

>For those involved in the "gays in
>the military", here's a summary of an NPR story I heard this morning.
>1)  Through the 1980's, about 1500 gays and lesbians were discharged from
>the military for being homosexual.
>2)  In 1990, when 1000 individuals were discharged, the military spent $27
>million recruiting and training their replacements.
>3)  In a study done in the 1980's, the Pentagon concluded that the presence
>of homosexuals in combat units had no effect on the morale or performance
>of those combat units.

The story also discussed how the executive order lifting the ban might be
shaped, and there was a suggestion that a "Uniform Code of Sexual Conduct",
applicable to all regardless of sexual orientation, might be included.

This, I think, should begin to address Jason Z's concern about sexual
harassment, though I'm not sure how KAT's concern regarding privacy will be
addressed.  As the NPR story pointed out, though, Clinton and his advisors
will have no shortage of models to examine.  Most of the armies around the
world do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, including Germany,
Spain, and Israel, as Kerry mentioned.  How did these countries address these
concerns?  How did they go about implementing the non-discrimination policies?
(I wouldn't be surprised if they have shower stalls with curtains, like Jamie
suggests...)

Speaking of implementation, NPR raised another interesting parallel with the
integration of non-whites into the armed services.  Although Harry Truman gave
the order during his presidency, it wasn't until the 70s that integration was
fully achieved, due to the poor and reluctant implementation and enforcement
of the policy.  Will we see the same thing with this new policy?  My guess is
that acceptance will take time, but certainly not twenty years.  Five years,
tops.

>To summarize, I haven't yet seen an argument against homosexuals in the
>military that does not boil down to "it would be uncomfortable."  That
>doesn't seem to me a compelling reason to discriminate.

Exactly.  While there may be issues to be addressed, they are not of such
breadth and weight that they outweigh the benefits.  KAT understands this,
Jason Z does not.  You, Jamie, Jonathan, Richard Fyfe, Peter, T, Joe, Julie,
and others have already annihilated the arguments against lifting the ban on
non-heterosexuals in the military most splendidly, so I'll not be covering that
ground.

>Kerry

On a side note to the list in general, Jason Z. is not a dweeb.  While he and
I disagree on a lot, I have respect for his opinion, something I can't say
about Jayce or Shawn.  It's just that he receives all his POLITICS mail from
an alternate dimension in which no one can answer his point (which tends to
change from day to day.  for example, one day he said the central problem was
sexual tension, the next day he said it was sexual harassment.) and he wins
his argument by default.  It's probably a bitnet glitch.

Addendum to side note:   :) :) :)

Gary W. Olson
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU