NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ba/politics/7870

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 4.7 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: ba.politics
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!butch!LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM!J056600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 10:43:19 PST
Lines: 64

   How much more can possibly be stated here on the issue?  We've heard quite
a bit from people representing both (all?) sides of the issue.  Some of the
arguments in each camp are good, some are garbage.  I've tried to shut up about
it (I don't shut up easily), but I can't take it anymore.  I have to sound off.
   One of the primary arguments used by the "anti-gay" forces (for lack of a
better term) is that heterosexuals will feel uncomfortable around someone who
is openly gay.  Well, yes, that's true.  Some people will undoubtedly feel
uncomfortable.  But is there a right to feel comfortable?  Is the military
exempted from the Constitution anywhere?  What price do we have to pay--and
what price does the Constitution *allow* us to pay--to feel "comfortable?"
   At least from a human rights perspective, we can't discriminate against
people just because they are gay.  Let's go back to the issue of feeling
"comfortable."  I'm sure that many people feel uncomfortable when (for
example) they are walking alone at night and a big black man is coming their
way.  Now, such fears may be at least partially founded, since black men as
a *group* are somewhat more prone to crime (I ignore socioeconomic factors
here; though they are relevant to the crime issue, they're not important for
the purposes of this discussion).  However, that doesn't give us the right to
demand that all black men must be indoors after dark.  Yes, the little ol'
ladies might feel more comfortable walking the streets.  But do they have the
*right* to feel that way at the _expense_of_someone_else_?
   Last year, a group of coeds at Brigham Young University suggested (quite
seriously) that due to several on-campus rapes and assaults, all men should
be subjected to a curfew.  Again, if you're a woman alone at night, you will
understandably feel uncomfortable about walking alone at night.  But does that
fact--caused by the action of perhaps 1% of the men out at night--justify in-
fringing on the Constitutional rights of the other 99% of them?  I claim that
it isn't.  Incidentally, I picked these two examples specifically to show that
discriminatory behavior exists in BOTH the PC (anti-male) and non-PC (anti-
black) flavors.  Attempts to pigeonhole this behavior into one camp or the
other is sheer folly.  It's everywhere, folks.
   I have tried to show that we can't discriminate against ALL members of a
group because of the actions of a few bad apples in that group (and what
group DOESN'T have a few bad apples, anyway?).  If you agree with that state-
ment and how it applies to the two statements above, then can't we see that
the "discomfort" argument is a strawman in the case of gays, too?  The military
is not given specific Constitutional exemptions.  They have to uphold it just
as the rest of us do.  So how can we justify banning ALL gays because a few
of them (*very* few) may make unwanted homosexual advances or rape another
man?  We can't draw that distinction based on race or gender, can we?
   The fact is, men already do that to women in the military (and to a far
lesser but certainly nonzero degree, women do it to men).  And do we not
already have rules, laws and regulations in place to deal with it?  (note:
whether we actually _apply_ those rules properly may be a subject of debate,
but they *do* exist).  In the case of unwanted advances, how is it different
from sexual harassment just because the "harasser" is gay?  Shouldn't it be
treated as "unwanted behavior of a sexual nature" which typically defines
sexual harassment?  Do we not already have rules which would punish gays (just
as any "straight" person) for disobeying those laws?  Nowhere does it say
that disciplinary matters for unwanted sexual behavior only applies to
incidents of a heterosexual nature.  So let's always apply them equally!  If
there's a gay man who is constantly harassing other men, discipline him.  Kick
him out if you have to.  But don't penalize all of the other gays who want to
serve their country also.
   I say all of this from a human rights perspective.  From a military effect-
iveness standpoint, I'm unequipped to make the call.  But much of the argument
I've heard revolves around "discomfort."  I hope I've dissected that aspect of
the debate.
   There.  I feel much better now.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************