home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!olivea!apple!netcomsv!netcomsv!boo!uttsbbs!neil.black
- From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
- Newsgroups: ba.politics
- Subject: RE: GAYS IN THE MILITARY
- Message-ID: <3861.58.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp>
- Date: 28 Dec 92 15:15:00 GMT
- Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
- Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
- Lines: 30
-
- -> Newsgroups: ba.politics
- -> From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
- -> Subject: Re: GAYS IN THE MILITARY
- -> Message-ID: <1992Dec28.114537.1613@netcom.com>
- -> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:45:37 GMT
- ->
- -> In article <3846.58.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil
- -> Black) w >One of the frequently used arguments against homosexuals
- -> in
- -> >the military is that "those people will try to have sex with
- -> >others." Well, you rarely (if ever) hear of homosexuals doing
- -> >such acts. And there are thousands upon thousands of
- -> >homosexuals in the military now (and there always has been).
- ->
- -> Really? I haven't heard ANY of the military arguments use this. The
- -> consistent rationale has been that it would be bad for morale. I
- -> don't think the miltary has ever claimed that two homosexuals having
- -> sex is a detriment.
-
-
- I've heard your rationale also, but the majority of the arguments I've
- heard (via KGO radio, Rush, etc.) involve the arguement I put forth
- above. Of course, the morale-lowering stance is ridiculous also, for
- the same reasons I already stated. There have-been, currently-are,
- always-will-be homosexuals in the military, and to this date, morale
- seems to be as high as it's ever been.
-
- If you don't believe that the showering thing isn't used as an
- arguement, check out alt.clinton. It's full of 'em.
-
-