NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12149

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.4 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12149 alt.politics.clinton:19034
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!cherokee!uswmrg!nuntius
From: [e-mail] (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
References: <[e-mail]>
     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:15:26 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> Brian Douglass,
[e-mail] writes:
>And yes most soldiers will do their job, they will over come their fear.
>However, the strongest mechanism the military stresses to overcome that
>fear is "Remember, you've got to do your job for your buddies.  Not for
God,
>not for country, but for the guy in the foxhole next to you."  to
paraphrase
>many a general from ancient to modern.  When two men share that level of
>commitment to one another, often stronger than many marriages, an openly
>homosexual preference by one of the soldiers can put a strain so heavy on
>the relationship, as to destroy the trust that is needed.

I recently spoke to a friend of mine who was a Vietnam veteran about this
net discussion.  I wanted to understand how the concept of "unit
cohesiveness" related to the issue of gays in the military.

He said he never had to deal with the issue directly, since it never came up
for him.  However, he did have to deal with the fact that he was initially
assigned to a unit which contained a few people that he (and most of the
unit) really disliked at first.  A couple of these cases were racial in that
they seemed to be like the worst stereotypical examples of their respective
races.  There was also one really rabid racist (nowadays we'd call him a
"white supremecist").  These were people he would have nothing to do with if
he weren't forced to.  As it turned out, one really was an "asshole" and
didn't make it through training (along with the racist).  Another became the
most respected member of the unit. The point my friend made was that in the
military, especially during training (where "unit cohesiveness" is really
built) it doesn't take long to get past the superficial differences, and to
the =real= value of ones companions.

>The problem is not done justice by such simplistic terms as homophobe,
>irrational fears, reeducation, etc.  And to propose that it does, I submit,
>evinces a clear design to push through an agenda for the agenda's sake,
>irrespective of the costs involved.  While more thoughtful proponents would
>seek to address all issues in a cautious manner that understands you are
>dealing with human beings, not robots that can simply programmed as the
>engineers see fit.

I agree that such terms must be applied carefully, and only where
appropriate, but they do, indeed, apply.

And, yes, there are several agendas at play here.  Many of us are concerned
that we are placing our need to defend ourselves ahead of those principles
that we are striving to defend.  Others are concerned that we are beginning
to accept things that they find abhorrent.  Others, still, are defending the
military as an "institution", which they see as being under attack from
within and without.

Those (at least, most) of us who are advocating change are not blind to the
short term consequences.  Any time people are forced to tolerate changes
that challenge deeply held beliefs (however rational or irrational those
beliefs are), there is going to be a struggle.  At it's root, we are faced
here with a struggle between between such deeply held beliefs.  On one side,
we have the belief that homosexuality is immoral and not to be tolerated
(or, at best, that there are issues more important than justice for them,
but most of see this a a smoke screen).  On the other, the belief that
homosexuality =can= be accepted, or at least tolerated, and that to allow
the persecution of gays in any way is in fundamental conflict with the
principles that keep us a free society.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

[e-mail] | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: [phone]                |   piss you off".