NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12076

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12076 alt.politics.clinton:18998 alt.politics.bush:14831 alt.politics.homosexuality:8284 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10566
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!rj24
From: [e-mail] (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:08:41 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russell Yonkers) writes:
>[e-mail] (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>Is it written in stone somewhere that recruits HAVE to shower together?
>>>Showering seems to be the big problem with having gays in the military.
>>>Hasn't anyone thought of putting up curtains?  Most women's locker rooms
>>>have them.  This fear of the shower is IMHO given too much emphasis since
>>>many persons in the military live off base anyway.  I agree privacy is
>>>important and the issue should be dealt, but accommodating privacy can
>>>be done without banning gays.
>>>
>>>Flame away!
>
>>No need for flames.  You simply know very little about the military.  When
>>women were allowed into the military, millions of dollars were spent in
>>order to provide separate facilities for them.  Likewise, dollars will have
>>to be spent to provide separate facilities for gays.  Before you answer,
>>"They can use the same facilities as heteros." let me ask you:  Who will
>>decide that?  So far, gays (and a few simpathizers) want to shower with
>>heteros, and don't think it will be a big deal.  Most heteros (esp. in the
>>active duty now), will think it is a very big deal.  This leads us right
>>back to a point I made about a week ago.  Nobody cares a lick about how
>>the heteros will feel about this.  We are not PC.  We do not matter.
>
>If it is ok for gays and hetero's to shower together then it should be ok
>for males and females to shower together.... opps I forgot that would
>be sexual harrassment for males and females to shower together because
>the males may find the females attractive and lust after them.  This
>would not be PC in the least so we must have seperate facilitys for
>the females.  But we know of course that the gays would never find a
>hetero attractive because he is not gay and would never lust after
>him.  I guess this is equal rights.  We know that the PC crowd is
>totally fair and just (NOT!).
I thought the stone age had ended, But aparently I am mistaken. How
idiots like this end up with net access is beyond me. Have you even
once considered judging people based on their actions? I assure you
that this is a valid method.

There is NO reason, other than bigotry, to keep homosexuals out of
the military. The question of showering and rooming together is
quite irrelevant. Do you think that there aren't gays in the military
now? How many soldiers do you think have been approached  sexually,
in a harassing manner, by another man in the shower? I'll bet you can't
think of even one case.

There is simply no reason to be uncomfortable in a comunal shower
having people of mixed sexual orientation, unless you are afraid of
comunal showering of any case. Maybe you homophobes are simply men
with a severe case of penis envy. Or maybe you are the type who wishes
to inject your ill-founded religious beliefs onto the good people of
this country.

Learn to use your brain, not sit on it.

Robert Johnston