NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12228

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12228 alt.politics.clinton:19072 alt.politics.bush:14897 alt.politics.homosexuality:8420 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10665
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!bgsuvax!jnomina
From: [e-mail] (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:52:34 GMT
Lines: 63

[e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (A.P.K.) writes:
> |>
> |>
> |> In an article, [e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
> |>
> |> [ .. discussion of shower room incident omitted .. ]
> |>
> |> >So why should we take this seriously in considering whether Gays
> |> >should be allowed in the Armed Forces?
> |> >
> |> >I'm not being flippant.   Why should we?
> |>
> |> I'm not about to say that gays _shouldn't_ be allowed in the military.
> |> I was merely pointing out that such incidents DO occur (while some
> |> people try to argue that such things _never_ occur.)
>
> Well, that's exactly the point I was making.   What "such incidents"
> are we talking about?
>
> If we are talking about something which was never reported, where you
> won't reveal who was involved, then we are not left with much.   All
> we are left with is an allegation, and as we have seen recently, allegations
> are a dime a dozen, and hard facts are difficult to come by.
>
> If someone - and of course that might not be you - wants to show that
> having Gays in the military is a problem, then I think that they need
> to do better then an anecdote that no-one can verify.
>
> I've deleted the rest of your reply since it's not what I was addressing.

Then what ARE you addressing, if not such incidents?  I cited one,
which was reported to me personally, and you write it off as anecdotal.
I understand that, somewhat, in that it becomes second-hand knowledge
to you personally.  However, it was reported -- to me, and I and another
NCO dealt with it accordingly (and not nearly as harshly as would have
been done if we'd reported it even higher up.)  As one of two moderators
of the incident, I find it to have been a little more than merely an
allegation.

Concerning the rest of my reply, if you take time to look up the
first posting I made, you'd find that it cites quite a bit of
personal experience on the subject.  Of course, that's all
filled with "allegation", too.  What do you want, names, times,
places and all the gory little details?  Some of that IS included
in the original posting.  If you want details you can verify,
you can pretty much forget that, it all ends up in restricted
files which aren't accessible by anyone.  The military tends
to keep problems such as this quiet, to protect the victims as
well as the perpetrators (be it homosexual OR heterosexual
charges.)  The only incidents which the public ever hears about, and
ever will hear about, are when the victims feel that they've
been wronged and not righted within the military, at which
point they go public.  How many guys who've been raped do you
know who would be willing to carry the charges out into the
public limelight?  If I find any, I'll be sure to let you know,
but in the meantime, the best you're going to get in the civilian
world are first-hand examples and cites such as I'm giving you.
I'm sorry that I can't do better than that, but I'm really not
at liberty to.

Jim