Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:59:03 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
              27 Jan 1993 01:44:26 CST from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:44:26 CST Jay Steven Sultan said:

>Moral arguments about rights and equality are wholly irrelevant.
>The simple truth is that public opinion must precede, not follow,
>any action.  Let me explain why.

Fine, but let's just remember THAT when discussing
abortion.

>Here is my central point.  As long as public attitudes toward
>homosexuality remain what they are today, those attitudes will
>ensure a catastrophic failure of any attempt to formally introduce
>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.
>
>You see, if homosexual behavior and lifestyles were not so
>opposed by the vast majority of the members of the military, these
>objections would be without merit and discrimination would be
>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.

Such was the case about integrating blacks in the
military.

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

I agree with this.  I even wrote a few posts
sympathizing with this.  However, we should balance the
right of privacy with the right of others to join and
be able to defend their country.

>Another myth being argued is that a ban on activity will suffice.
>It is not the orientation that matters, some argue.  All we need is
>to ban homosexual activity the way we ban heterosexual activity.
>The problem is that heterosexual activity is rampant within the
>military.  From the countless observations of friends and family in
>the military, heterosexual activity occurs all the time, at all levels
>of the military.  The idea that we can introduce homosexuals and
>not introduce homosexual acts into the military is fallacious.

Well, let me tell you a fact (not a myth.)  Homosexuals
are not banned from US campuses.  They use the showers
that are used by heterosexuals and we don't hear
rampant rape or harassment of heterosexuals by
homosexuals.  If any probabely heterosexuals harass
homosexuals.

>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.

So being a Catholic is a characteristic not a behavior?

>Two years ago, this was the topic of my forst post to this list.  Go figure.

Well, many people told you, "you wouldn't get ANYWHERE
with this attitude."    :-)

>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 don't know about others but I for one am glad you are
here.

Let me say the same thing but in no uncertain terms:
"I want to have your baby, Jay."      :-)

--KAT

>Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU