From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gays in the military: last chance
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:34:00 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

In article <tfilt393011@drew.edu>, ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET writes:
> Thank you all for your brilliantly insightful remarks.  Particular honors go t
   o
sarcasm ignored. I don't know if I'm among those read by Jason (I
should be since he used my post to give his last chance, but didn't
answer it), but all of those remarks must have been mighty dumb that
he didn't have to answer them, but just riducle them as a group.

>> Anyway, it seems to me that my point is still pretty much untouched.  IF you

what point was that?  you seem to keep changing your point.  First you
were concerned about homosexuals leering as a form of sexual
harassment and claimed that those who support homosexuals in the
military justify this as nonthreatening.  Next, you brought up the
shower problem which you said wasn't the real problem by comparing
private employers forcing women to shower with men (didn't answer the
comment that if this behavior is justified, it ain't harassment, but
never mind).  Now, you are worried about homosexuals living in close
quarters.

> intrinsic to the military, so they're no big deal.  However, living in close
> quarters with members of the opposite sex (for all practical purposes) is
> clearly not intrinsic to the military.  In fact, the whole reason gays and

being black wasn't intrinsic to the military once upon a time either,
but it was decided that keeping them separate or out completely was 1)
unequal 2) a waste of resources.  So besides keeping homosexuals out,
you want to keep women out of Gulf War situations, plus blacks,
plus...

> women have been excluded is because such living arrangements damage morale.  I
> haven't seen anyone refute this (although I've been sorting through a lot of

hear of the Gulf War?  how many women lived in close living
arrangements there?  It appeared we won the war, and it wasn't so
terrible.  What about NATO countries that allow homosexuals or some
countries even allow women in combat (Isreal)?  No one claimed that
morale wasn't a problem when there was an adjustment to this, but the
facts show the the military didn't collapse either.  People spoke
about such stuff repeatly, so what's the problem?

> Maybe Jamie or Kerry or somebody who is willing to discuss this rationally can
> explain to me why I'm wrong here.  So far, the people who have responded have
> only reinforced my intitial beliefs.
>
> JasonZ

maybe, but I have my doubts.  Over and over again it was noted that
sexual harassment is conduct, not just exposure.  It was noted that
studies have shown that the reasons against having homosexuals in the
material have shown that the reasons aren't backed up by facts.  It
was noted that the military is a place where privacy and individuality
is not esteemed virtues, but military readiness is.  Thus, if the
increased resource of homosexuals have a positive contribution to the
military readiness, they are militarily valid additions.  The
cost/benefit analysis involved is that the added skill and manpower
(and more equal society) will be a cost for some may be uncomfortable
with the idea of being with homosexuals.  Studies in other countries
show this to not be a major threat to military readiness, nor does
informal knowledge here in most cases.
   So let's see:
1) sexual harassment (conduct) will be punished as before
2) homosexuals are an asset (1 in 10 people are a lot, and this
doesn't include bisexuals or those who had homosexual affairs)
3) research and foreign countries show homosexuality isn't a major
problem to military effectiveness
4) with the asset of homosexuals plus the research showing the costs
are low, allowing them in will add to military effectiveness i.e. the
sin qua non purpose of the military
5) privacy issue: a)this isn't a big concern for the military b)it is
superceded if it adds to military readiness c)the amount of professed
homosexuals that will lead others to feel uncomfortable is small [a
fraction of the 10% figure] d) unless this uncomfortable feeling
effects b, it is cancelled out by 1-4 e) again there are many jobs
where close quarters are present.  is homosexuality wrong there too?
6) women/homosexual comparison: a) 100% are women and 100% are known
to be women b)sexually the two obviously aren't comparable;
homosexuals are in the minority and are apt to be very careful, while
men are in the majority and can abuse women more easily c)there isn't
any big need to have communal showers among the sexes though separate
shower stalls would solve this problem [is this only a MASH idea or is
stalls the norm?  if so, nudity isn't even present communally]  d) if
military readiness would force females to expose themselves, they
would have to
7)what's the final problems?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU