ShareWare OnLine 2/ShareWare OnLine Volume 2 (CMS Software)(1993).iso/infor/famag2r.zip/FA-7

Text File | 1993-03-23 | 20KB | 374 lines

             A Sensitive Topic, A Sensible Discussion

(The following recent discussion of pros and cons about gays in the military
took place on a bulletin board known as After The Revolution, 703/241-5652.
It struck your sysop/managing editor as an outstanding example of a
discussion in which participants could disagree without being disagreeable,
and exchange sharply differing ideas without raising their voices and blood
pressures, while lowering their I.Q.s and mental standards. Thanks to all
participants for their words and thoughts, and for permission to use same
in The Free American Magazine. )

====
From    : Karl Weiss

What are your feelings about gays in the military?  Have you served
in any of the armed forces?  Just wondering.

====
From    : Anthony Portare
To      : Karl Weiss

        Okay, let me butt in!  I have served in the military.  Not for
very long, 4 years.  I have mixed emotions on this subject.  I can see
the reason for concern among the leaders.  I would imagine that there
will be some that will be idiots and some that will be just fine, like
everything else in life.  The problem is the impact the idiots will
have on the entire establishment.  Of course, if I could answer that I
would probably run for God!
====

From    : David Harris
To      : Twilight Dancer

     Gays in the military....to be honest with you, I have a hard time
understanding why people (especially in the military) (not all, just
some that I've talked to) seem so threatened by this concept.  I listen
to and try to understand their "reasons" but they seem to forget the
fact that if they feel they are being harassed, they can go to Social
Actions just like anybody else.  People seem to have a poor image of
gays.  I use the term "people" generically and don't mean to offend
anybody.  It bothers me when I hear people using homosexual "labels" as
insults.  In my opinion, that shows a great deal of ignorance and
bigotry.  Maybe my whole point is that I wish everybody would "lighten
up".
====
From    : Twilight Dancer
To      : Karl Weiss

     I feel that if someone is willing to serve, they should be allowed to
serve. No I haven't served in any of the armed services, but I think
it's my right as a taxpayer to have an opinion on it. I also don't
think the military has the right to stand above the law and exclude
people from serving without legitimate reason.
====
From    : Twilight Dancer
To      : David Harris

     I agree totally. Now if others would agree, we'd get along great.
====
From    : Alex
To      : David Harris

     It seems to me (and a number of others I have spoken to) that people
of the same sex are more likely to feel negatively to gay people of the
same sex.  I for instance know 3 or 4 gay men and we are good friends,
I could care less about their private lives....however, if I am to be
totally honest, (and I can't explain why) I am most uncomfortable
around women who are gay; at least those that are openly so.   I think
the military should abide by the same rules as everyone else and a
persons sexual preference should have nothing to do with their doing
their job.  People are people, some are shy, some are nice, some are
jerks - and everyone has to be taken on their own merit.  (All above is
of course, IMHO)
====
From    : Karl Weiss
To      : Twilight Dancer

     Well said.  However, the primary function of the military is to break
things and kill people.  All else is rubbish.  Anything that hampers
that basic mission will get more additional people killed.  The U.S.
armed forces are *not* like the ones that have gays openly in them.
Those forces are for show, border defense, and to satisfy national
egos.  Our forces, like those of the old USSR and Red China have a
national power projection use, like it or not.  Admitting gays into the
military will deter from the military capabilities of our forces.  If
someone is in, or wants to go in, and stays under cover (as it were),
that is fine.  There were and are many fine homosexuals serving in the
armed forces.  However, they are treated like straights because they
act like straights, so everyone overlooks the lifestyle.  A convenience,
I admit, but true.  If they come out of the closet, they are a threat
to the macho image a fighting man has for himself and what the soldier
wants to present to the world.

     What people who have never served in the military don't understand is
the image factor.  A soldier, sailor, Marine, pilot, etc., has to be
the biggest, baddest dude on the block, or he won't come home.  Our
perceptions of that are based in our warrior society from the last
century.  A man's gotta be a man, and loving another man like a woman
ain't right.

     Bringing gays into the military will destroy that image and make the
fighter (for that is what they are) lose effectiveness.  Can we afford
that?  What if your brother is one that is killed because we lost that
edge?

     As one who served 20 years in the armed forces, and in combat, I feel
that I am qualified to make statements on the problem.  Our military
and our country *can't* afford to let the armed services become a
social experiment.  If gays want in, then fine, but stay in the closet.
====
From    : David Manuel
To      : Karl Weiss

     As someone who believes our military should be open to all who want to
serve, whatever their race, gender, religion, sexual proclivity, etc.,
I will admit that there is sense to what Karl says.  Let's face it --
many men, if not most men, are very uncomfortable with male
homosexuality.  Now, I personally believe this is a social problem
which we should try to resolve.  In an ideal society, no one would be
bothered by the sexual activities of other consenting adults (let me
add as well that no one would want to inflict pain or unpleasantness on
anyone else in the name of sex, either).  GI Joe wouldn't give a damn
if GI Steve was gay, 'cause both of them would respect each other, and
they'd be professional enough to keep their sex lives separate from
their jobs.  The same would be true about GI Joe and GI Gladys.
Nevertheless, we aren't there yet.  If GI Joe's thinking about how
disgusted he is by GI Steve's homosexuality and not the job at hand,
somebody could get killed.  So, although I am not persuaded that the US
military should discriminate against homosexuals, I will concede that
it's just not as simple as it's made out to be.

     There is one thing that greatly disturbs me about all this, however,
and that is the notion that violence and manliness are inherently
wrapped up in one another.  I'm not saying this isn't the way things
are -- I think Karl is absolutely correct about this.  I'm saying I
wish this weren't the case.  I frankly believe (and here I am merely
venturing my *amateur psychiatrist* views) that there is some
subconscious connection being made between sexual penetration and
violence.  The man penetrates--he is strong.  The woman is
penetrated--she is weak.  Men who act like women are weak.  Etc.  So
maybe we're all still living in the cave?

So I guess where I'm coming from on this is that I wish we didn't need
armies, but global peace seems a long way away.  Maybe we should
acknowledge that there is a larger social problem of which the question
of gays in the military is just one issue.
====
From    : Twilight Dancer
To      : Karl Weiss

     Well, I gotta reply to this. Sorry, though I won't flame, (at least
I'll try not to).

     A) There are more purposes for the military than to break things and
kill people. But I'm not going to argue that point right now.

     B) As far as the nations that do allow gays into the military, just
because they are not nations that fight constant battles or are called
upon to 'defend democracy' does not mean they are not actual military
powers.

     C) I fail to see how allowing gays in the military will take away from
the basic mission you stated. A gay is not less capable of 'killing and
breaking things', than a heterosexual is. By their nature they do not
detract from the mission of the military.

     D)As far as the macho image thing goes, I don't see where this has any
place in the debate for or against homosexuals in the military.
Seriously, there are other factors than whether a soldier feels macho
that effect whether or not he comes home. A heck of a lot of soldiers
have never come home who thought they were the 'biggest, baddest dude
on the block', and a lot who didn't they were have come home.

     E) Again you state that bring gays into the military will make the
fighters lose effectiveness. I have heard this argument in twenty
different forms, saying how gays in the military will make it less
effective, and result in more deaths, and I always reply in the same
way. *HOW* *WHY*, what about gays is going to make a military with them
in it less effective?

     F) As someone who's an american citizen, and has experienced his share
of injustice, I feel I'm qualified to make statements on the problem.
We have no right to bar someone from the military because of who they
may or may not choose to have relations with. Sex is not a job
requirement, there is nothing in the military that hinges upon the
soldier being heterosexual. How can we as a nation say that we are the
land of freedom, that we defend freedom and democracy if we stand here
and say that you can't serve because we don't like what you are. How
can we say, we'll on let you serve if you pretend you're something
else. That's ridiculous.
====
From    : Twilight Dancer
To      : David Manuel

" There is one thing that greatly disturbs me about all this, however,
  and that is the notion that violence and manliness are inherently
  wrapped up in one another.  I'm not saying this isn't the way things
  are -- I think Karl is absolutely correct about this.  I'm saying I
  wish this weren't the case.  I frankly believe (and here I am merely
  venturing my *amateur psychiatrist* views) that there is some
  subconscious connection being made between sexual penetration and
  violence.  The man penetrates--he is strong.  The woman is
  penetrated--she is weak.  Men who act like women are weak.  Etc.  So
  maybe we're all still living in the cave?"

     Now I suppose you're gonna get flamed for this anyway. But in case
someone misses it here are a few things from me.

     First of all, (and this argument starts off obscurely), I wonder if
you've ever had a female pet. If so, have you ever had one that had
offspring, (puppies, kittens, etc). If you have, do you remember trying
to touch one of them before the mother was ready to let you? Anyone who
thinks that a) women are inherently weak, b) violence is linked to being
g male, should take a look at any female protecting her young. I've
seen cats that were tiny, stand off a Doberman, rather than let it get
to her litter. While this is just one case, there are more examples of
it happening, and it happens in humans too.

     Secondly, (I have so many points on this that I don't know where to
start), the concept that men are strong because they penetrate and
women are weak is at best macho BS. I really don't think most males
would see penetration as the easy end of the job, and while yes it is
exerting some control, this is not always the case.  I don't see where
you can link violence with penetration.

     Thirdly, so if what you said is true, than does that mean that half
the homosexuals would be good at violence and half wouldn't be? Exactly
when is a man 'acting like a woman'? Or is it just that all gays are
sissies? (This is not intended as a pot shot, it's just I find it hard
to believe that people still think that to be capable of being
'violent' one has to be a sexual aggressor, or that any cases where
this isn't the case are just exceptions.). I know a fair number of
homosexual men, and they're just as capable of violence as any straight
guy. I also think that in a way the average homosexual has a touch more
of inner strength than the average heterosexual. Before you flame think
about it, they are targets of scorn and hatred just by being what they
are. When they walk down a city street they are targets, just because
of who they find attractive. How many people would walk down a street
with so many potential 'enemies', and before you answer think about it
this way, the average heterosexual white male, wouldn't walk down the
streets of Harlem. The average heterosexual black male wouldn't enjoy
walking down a street in the heart of the deep south, (no knock against
southerners here). However every day a gay guy walks down the street he
is at risk that some guy full of machismo is going to take his
existence as an insult to his manhood and decide to rough him up. I
think that's fairly brave.

     I don't think we can in any way link the capability for violence to
sexual orientation, or to your sex. Anyone can be violent. And as far
as the soldier being to worried about the guy next to him being gay to
do his job, well then that's his tough luck, because how is he going to
tell him from anyone else? Do we make them wear pink armbands or
something? Unless you do something like that you won't know one way or
another who's gay and who's straight. And as someone once said, any
straight soldier who's busy worrying about whether the gay next to him
in the foxhole is attracted to him, is just flattering himself. Gays
are as capable as everyone else of keeping their mind on the job at
hand.
====
From    : David Manuel
To      : Twilight Dancer

     I think you miss a bit of my point, T-d.  I am not saying men are more
capable of violence because of their traditional sex role, I am saying
that we have come to confuse sex and violence over the ages.  Of course
we are all capable of violence, but the whole "macho" thing suggests a
relationship on our minds.
====
From    : Ivan
To      : Twilight Dancer

        I'm glad this topic is being discussed, because it is a pretty
important one - all the same, it feels to me like the probable duties
of the military in the near future are more related to fast, efficient
provision for civilian populations (Somalia, Hurricane Andrew) or
security for domestic unrest (LA). The Guts and Glory days for the
military seem to be pretty much over, if there were ever any.

       Most people, civilian and military alike, agree that the
structure of the military needs to be adjusted to be more adequate to
likely Low Intensity Conflict or National Emergencies - these duties
are very dissimilar to Cold War military training. For those who want
to be part of a tightly organized effort to "provide and protect" - it
doesn't matter what goes down in bedrooms.
        Anyway - that's my two cents. I think Gays should be included,
allowed to sacrifice for their country, if that's what they choose.
====
From    : David Harris
To      : Alex

     I suspect you're probably right on the same sex feeling more negative
towards gays of that sex.  That would explain a lot of people's
reactions to gays in the military.  However, that certainly doesn't
exclude them from service just because somebody may feel uncomfortable
around them, which is what you basically say in your message....
====
From    : David Harris
To      : All

     I haven't called for a few days and there were some very well stated
messages that I wanted to respond to, however, there were too many of
them so I just wanted to put my opinion in a "generic" message for
anybody to respond to.

     I remember reading one comment about not understanding the
anti-gay-in-the-military position unless you'd been in a situation
where it would "possibly" cause conflict (like combat).  I certainly
haven't been in that situation during my limited 3 years and running in
the military and so I really cannot answer to that.  However, if that
point was applied to many debates, nothing would ever get done because
there will always be some facet of life that one has not experienced
against or for which another is arguing.

     My biggest problem with the anti-gay-in-the-military position is the
discrimination problem.  A big "selling point" of the '92 election was
that it is a time for change.  I feel its a time for the military to
change also.  Current world crisis situations seem much different than
they have been in the past, even combat oriented problems.  The
military is so high-tech now that you kill people by pressing buttons,
half the time you never even see the people you're killing.  While some
"infantry" combat probably remains, its not arrows, swords, bayonets,
and hand grenades any more.  My point is that the military needs to
abandon some of its outdated "traditions" and "social perspectives."
One cannot exclude gays from the military on any basis and still claim
to be non-discriminatory...that would be hypocrisy.  If the military
keeps its ban on gays, then I sure as heck want them to step up and
say, "Hey world, we're self-righteous hypocritical bigots, but we're
damn good at our job!"
====
From    : Alex
To      : David Harris

  "... exclude them from service just because somebody may feel
   uncomfortable around them, which is what you basically say in your
   message...."

     If that was what I basically said in my message I must have been more
tired than I thought!  Forgive me, my feelings on the subject are the
opposite.  I have been going through the messages on this subject and
basically I think we all generally agree.  Gays *should* be allowed to
serve and this should in no way affect anyone else or the military
structure in general.  However, society has not reached the ideals many
of us hold for it (yet).  Homophobia IS rampant in our society and
shows little sign of great improvement any time soon.

     Re: macho attitude affects working conditions/environment I ask you to
look no farther than "The Tailhook" incident.  If the *macho* males
feel free to treat women in such a fashion (in an age of generally
raised consciousness) I can imagine how these same males would take to
adjusting their attitudes for homosexuals.

     I don't think the immediate effect of "out of the closet" gays is
acceptable, however, I think it is inevitable.
====
From    : John Hopkins
To      : Karl Weiss

     I just wondering, Karl, how would you explain Alexander the Great who
was openly homosexual.  It seems history would paint him as a "Bad Dude"
and it would also seem that his legacy was not that he preferred men, but
that he would rip a person's face off.

     The idea that gays should stay in the closet, but otherwise it's ok
that they protect you nation, seems to give you a dishonest militia and
how can you expect that to protect an honest population?

     Gays have every right in the military, these is not a single shred of
evidence that they detract from the military's ability to defend.  The
arguments made against now are exactly the same one's used to try and
keep Afro Americans and women out of the armed forces.  And I hope we
both can agree these were ridiculous notions.
                              =X=X=X=