From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:06:32 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Dec30.075339.10884@netcom.com>, by phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone):
> In article <13741@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
#     >Phil, do you really believe that "most men would be
#     >unconfortable with homosexuals?" I mean, you don't live in
#     >Northern Idaho. Really, most of us are live and let live when
#     >it comes to the sexuality of others. There are gay people in
#     >just about every occupation (including yours and mine), and
#     >that doesn't seem to disrupt us too severely.

> That depends. I don't have any "good" polls to really know. Aside from
> anecdotal evidence, there are only the accounts of male professional
> athletes -- and they don't like women reporters OR homosexuals in the
> locker rooms (for different reasons). The evidence for the homosexuals
> comes from those athletes who came out and reported on their new
> non-acceptance.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post.  I see the above
as true, but merely an educational problem.  I'm glad that you
said "for different reasons" because a woman in a mens' locker
room would stand out like a sore thumb, but a gay man would not.
When I was a young and dumb athlete, I once was showering off
with my training partner, who is gay, when I dropped my bar of
soap.  Classic.  Sensing that I was "uncomfortable" about the
situation, he kicked the bar of soap so that it landed some
distance away, and then went over there and picked it up.  So
I realized that all gays are not out to get me.  Face it, if
four percent of all people are gay, that's one in 25, and we
come into contact with them all of the time.

#     >While I agree with you on most issues, using your logic above
#     >would imply that many other groups of people would have
#     >trouble "coming out." Should we therefore ban these folks
#     >(e.g. members of unpopular religious or other groups) from
#     >military service? Your phobias (and mine as well) about
#     >various groups of people shouldn't be the basis of
#     >governmental discrimination.

> Well, it's loaded to call it a phobia. Do women in the military have a phobia
> about coed showers, latrines, bunk rooms?

Yes indeed, it is loaded.  Women's fears about co-edness might
be somewhat justified given typical heterosexual male treatment
of women by many in the military.

> Note that after I though through the whole issue, the only thing that "needs"
> to be done is to remove the areas of discomfort. For women, this is already
> done in distinct facilities that deal with sexual contexts. If this was
> done for homosexuals, I can't see a single reason to keep them from service.

But to what lengths should the government go to remove this
discomfort?  What if I'm in the military and I cannot stand
the idea of taking a shower with a black or a jew?  What should
be done here?  Yes, when our armed services were integrated
(racially), it did cause a momentary problem, but it all worked
out well in the end.

> On the other hand, it would cost a good chunk of money to build the extra
> facilities, not to mention the uneasyness at such "labelling".

Yes, and silly too.  I can see it now:  "This outhouse for use
only by jewish lesbian disabled uzi-owning obese republican nuns."

> In any case, this is one of the foundational weaknesses of a coercive
> democracy. With FOA, this is a non-problem -- you don't want to serve
> left-handed Latvians in your restaurant, go right ahead.

No argument there at all.

> But the State MUST be "blind" to all but ability. On the other hand, what
> if 99% of the voters in the State do not want this "blind" evenhandedness?
> For example, our unconstituitional internment of Americans of Japanese
> ancestry?

I think that we realized that this was a mistake, didn't we?

> Thta's why I want absolute rights, upon which NO democracy can trifle with.

Yep, and not only do I want them for me and you, but for gays
and everyone else as well, just no special rights which is
really just PC discrimination.

> And which is why I assert that we have inalienable rights that are NOT
> granted by an act of Congress, but are superior to Congress (which is
> why I was against ERA -- what Congress gives, it then has a basis for taking
> away).

Huh?  Perhaps someone can help me out here, but I thought that
the ERA was supposed to be a constitutional ammendment, and thus,
Congress would be required to abide by it.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992