NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12157

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 9.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12157 alt.politics.clinton:19039
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!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 17:50:42 GMT
Lines: 164

Mail editor truncated previous reply (damn dashes!)  reply continues...

In article <[e-mail]> Brian Douglass,
[e-mail] writes:
>it is going to be pretty difficult to convince the avergage
>dogface that he can trust the gay guy next to him.  In the back of that
>soldier's mind, he will wonder "Is he going to freak when the shells start
>coming in?  Throw on a dress or something?  I better cover my own ass."

As previously stated, trust is not automatic... it is earned and built.  And
stereotypes are things that must be overcome before a person can function in
=any= situation where they have no control over the choice of their
comrades.  Your argument seems to imply that, in this regard, gays are a
"special" kind of stereotype that is somehow more difficult to overcome than
others.  Why?

>An openly gay soldier could be anyone
>of these three lifestyles.  While the lab assistant may be easily accepted
>by fellow soldiers, the other two are clearly predatory and submissive.
>Both would constitute major problems in morale, discipline and unit
>cohension for the military.  What to do?  Make exceptions dependant on the
>type of gay lifestyle?

OK, let's examine these three "types" (keeping in mind that analogous
"types" apply to heterosexuals as well).  The "normal" (lab coat) is, as you
say, easily accepted and therefore no problem.  The "predator" is agressive,
forceful, and dominating... clearly the makings of superior soldier.  The
"submissive" (if I understand your description) is basically a wimp.  There
is no place in combat for a wimp, and this individual would almost certainly
wash out.

In other words, on balance, homosexuals are comprised of people who would
make good, bad, or "normal" soldiers, just like straights.

>There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.  If someone turned
>around and proved to me that women are clearly superior soldiers in every
>respect to males, then I'd say ban men from joining the armed forces if it
>meant having the best armed services we could have.  That, above all else
>is the most important thing.

There are women soldiers who are better than the "average" male soldier.
There are also gay soldiers who have proved themselves to be superior to the
"average" soldier.  Their presence has made the military incrementally
better than it would be in their absence.

The suggestion that strength comes from segregation is where =I= see
blindness.  True strength comes from unified diversity.

>>Sounds like an argument for more gay soldiers.  He's endured all those
>>years of hazing.  It strengthened his character.  Yet, he still
>>wants to serve his country.  It's turned him into this bitchin' mean
>>fighting machine and now he's ready for real war.

>If he did endure it, it was in private.  If it was known he was gay,
>usually an officer, it was kept private.  If he was enlisted, he was
>discharged.  I don't know of any examples, but I think you would have a real
>problem showing an openly gay soldier that made it through boot.  Closet
>gay, no question they made it and excelled in the armed forces, at least
>some did, not all.

He or she will continue to have that option under Clinton's executive order.
 Either to keep their sexuality to themselves (perfectly appropriate), or to
risk ridicule and bashing by letting it become known.  I would expect the
latter to generally happen only after he or she had earned the respect of
their companions.

>Until you can convince me that you know more about military psychology than
>me, and can see both sides of the issue, then you're just dreaming to think
>gays can be integrated into the military overnight and the armed forces not
>suffer a serious reduction in ability.

As you have already pointed out, gays are =already= integrated into the
military.  The only "overnight change" being proposed is revoking the brass'
option of 1) ask people who they sleep with before admitting them, and 2)
throwing anyone out who is discovered to be homosexual.  This is =not= going
to have earth shattering consequences!

>Blacks were segregated in the military for nearly a 100 years before
>integration.  That had a long and proud history of all black units in armed
>services to show as example they were just as capable as whites.  And after
>all that, it still took them 40 to reach CJCS.  How can you think it would
>take gays any less time, especially given the lack of unit history.

Gays have =already= proven themselves as competant, having been integrated
(if not accepted) for far longer than 100 years.  They already serve at all
levels.  This doesn't seem to be a problem that needs to be overcome in this
regard.

Regarding your proposed integration plan:

>    1)    Gays be given honorable discharges, not general, not
>dishonorable.  Change the stigma of being gay to the existing military.
>    2)    A general program of tolerance to those that are different.
>    3)    At some point in the future, I would guess 5 years, allow
>gays to serve in strict noncombat roles.  That is nonfield positions.  A
>very small number of slots but a start.
>    4)    At some later point, probably 10 years, allow gays into
>combat service/combat support roles.  In the AirLandSea 2000, the
>distinction between combat and non combat will be even more blurred, but
>clearly there is a difference between a grunt in an AFV blasting tanks, and
>guy back at the depot making sure the water is pure.
>    5)    Probably 20 years from now, allow gays in the direct combat
>role.  I don't like the idea of segregated units, but such units could be
>formed sooner, and provide direct evidence that gays are just as capable as
>straights.

In other words, kick them all out, throw away their years of proud service,
and make them start over from scratch.

How about this as a much simpler and fairer alternative suggestion:

1) Do a little creative research and find out about notable =former=
military people who were gay.  Include this information in the curriculum of
a "program of tolerance" such as you have proposed.  Obviously such a
curriculum is sorely needed, as shown by the "Tailhook" scandal.

2) Encourage gay servicepeople to remain "in the closet" until at least such
time as they prove themselves to be truly outstanding and meritorious.  This
could, in some cases, have the beneficial side effect of motivating them to
excel.

3) Consistently enforce existing sexual harassment and hate crime related
regulations without regard to the target of the hatred or harassment.

This would allow Clinton's Executive Order to have the smooth, evolutionary
change that would benefit everybody.

>>> And no amount of legislation
>>> or executive orders can automatically change people over night.
>>
>>No one has said that people would change overnight.
>
>But it most activists want it to happen overnight.

Most activists are satisfied to remove the obstacles to change (such as
discriminatory regulations, common unfairly discriminatory practices, and
specific bigoted individuals) and let the change evolve naturally.  The
military's persecution of gays is just such an obstacle.  Removing the
military's ban on gays will not change the military overnight, but allow
that change to progress gradually, as it should.

>We're not talking about social changes, were talking about military
>changes.  We're not talking about discrimination of minorities or religion,
>both of which are protected by the constitution, we're talking sexual
>preference.  Why the need to always equate the two?

We are, basically, talking about freedom of choice.  People should have that
freedom when it does not hurt others.  Whether it is the freedom to choose
homosexuality or the freedom to accept a biological imperative, it is still
a freedom that they should be able to enjoy.

One last thing.  A fear is frequently expressed that there will be a mass
exodus from the military in the wake of the Executive Order, but I just
can't see it.  Why would people leave just because the military is no longer
actively purging itself of gays?  It's not like they can find another line
of work that =does=.  And, the day after the EO, they will be working side
by side with =exactly= the same people they were the day before.

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".