NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12418

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 4.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12418 alt.politics.clinton:19191 alt.politics.bush:15003 alt.politics.homosexuality:8512 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10834
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!briand
From: [e-mail] (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:15:52 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Lines: 70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>|>BTW, in some services, hetro soldiers can still be prosecuted for consential
>|>sodomy or oral copulation with a women while on base.  Should Clinton repeal
>|>this ban also, while he repeals it for homosexuals?

There was a recent report in U.S. News and World report about a man was
prosecuted for consential sodomy with a women in base housing.  It was
apparently a house or apartment ON BASE, but that he occupied alone.  He
wrote down the experience in a diary, which some other woman found and gave
to NIS, which in turn used as evidence against.  The charge against him was
consential sodomy with a female, which was forbidden, not consential sex
with a female (i.e. regular copulation).  Which, though not clear, the
article implied was allowable in private quarters ON BASE.  The point is
there are many laws in the military dealing with sexual behaviour, not
strictly homosexual behaviour.  Will Clinton repeal all of them?

>Clinton is not repealing any band on having sex while on base.  Please
>learn the difference between being homosexual and having homosexual sex.

Gee, doesn't one have to do it to be one?  And until then, aren't just a
virgin? <8-;

Seriously, just how would you dilineate the two?  And just because you do
something, doesn't mean you are one.  For instance, I've known girls that
did it with another girl, but only once or twice.  Does that make them
lesbian?  I don't think so.  On the surface some may say it does, but
having been friends with these girls for many years, and observing the
situations that brought about these encounters, I would disagree.

>
>Currently, you will be kicked out of the military even if you only state
>that you are homosexual.  You will be kicked out even if the military has
>evidence that you had same-gender sex while on leave.

Now while this is true, news reports about people like Pannacia seem to
indicate they are having success in the courts because being openly gay is
not a violation of the military conduct code, rather having homosexual
activity on or off-base is.  And which the military must prove, not allege
took place simply because someone is openly gay.

Could someone report more factually?

>Gays and straights will still be required to separate their professional
>and personal lives.  But who they date while they are on their own time
>should be of no concern to the military.

Well of course the military has some concern over who a soldier dates, it's
called National Security.  Do you remember the Clayton Lonetree incident in
Moscow?  And while I don't know of any homosexual blackmail incidents
relating to NS, I do know of plenty of hetrosexual blackmail incidents.
Traditionally, an adulterous husband was just as much of a security risk as
a closet homosexual.

And while the end of the Cold War has eased a great many restrictions, for
instance openly gay civilians can get clearances, National Security still has
an overriding priority versus civil rights.

NS aside, the military has only very limited call for knowing sexual
preference, but again, in those situations the military concern is
overriding.

>--
>Tim Fogarty
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
>[e-mail]