NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12230

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12230 alt.politics.clinton:19073 alt.politics.bush:14898 alt.politics.homosexuality:8422 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10666
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: [e-mail] (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:41:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
Lines: 87
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (A.P.K.) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> > 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'm addressing whether "such incidents" are a serious problem.  You
must understand that it's very easy for someone - not you, necessarily -
to say "Yes, I know of such incidents" if they also know that they won't
be asked to substantiate what they say.

I'm not saying that what you told us isn't true.   I'm pointing out
that if it was never reported, it's very hard to check if it is true.

|> I cited one, which was reported to me personally, and you write it
|> off as anecdotal.

"Write it off" is a loaded term.   What I am pointing out is that it
*is* 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.

Unfortunately, since you dealt with it personally, and can't tell us
who was involved, the whole thing was dealt with outside the normal
rules of evidence, and there is no paper trail.

You say that this incident was reported to you, and that you dealt with
it.   That means that you had to decide who to believe, how to interpret
what you were told, judge how severe the incident was, and also what the
approriate method was to deal with it.

This is exactly the situation that things like the Military Code and
civilian criminal codes are intended to avoid.   Formal proceedings
act as protection for people who are accused, as well as for people
who might be victims.

|>
|>                                              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.

Well, that's also a bit of a problem, isn't it?   The military seems
to have no problem in conducting undercover operations to uncover Gays
who have done nothing at all, and discharge them.   The Military seems
to have no problem with whatever publicity those Gays suffer as a result.

But when we ask for hard cases, you tell us that the Military likes
to keep that kind of thing quiet.

I'm sure that you can see that this poses a bit of a problem for
anyone who is trying to get a balanced picture of just how serious
- or not - this problem really is.

Given that Gays as a group are already the subject of accusations
based on little more than popular stereotypes, you must expect a few
questions when you present what even you admit is evidence at
second-hand.

jon.