NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ba/politics/7970

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 3.7 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: ba.politics
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!phil
From: [e-mail] (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:53:39 GMT
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Walsh) writes:
    >Phil, do you really believe that "most men would be
    >unconfortable with homosexuals?" I mean, you don't live in
    >Northern Idaho. Really, most of us are live and let live when
    >it comes to the sexuality of others. There are gay people in
    >just about every occupation (including yours and mine), and
    >that doesn't seem to disrupt us too severely.

That depends. I don't have any "good" polls to really know. Aside from
anecdotal evidence, there are only the accounts of male professional
athletes -- and they don't like women reporters OR homosexuals in the
locker rooms (for different reasons). The evidence for the homosexuals
comes from those athletes who came out and reported on their new
non-acceptance.

    >While I agree with you on most issues, using your logic above
    >would imply that many other groups of people would have
    >trouble "coming out." Should we therefore ban these folks
    >(e.g. members of unpopular religious or other groups) from
    >military service? Your phobias (and mine as well) about
    >various groups of people shouldn't be the basis of
    >governmental discrimination.

Well, it's loaded to call it a phobia. Do women in the military have a phobia
about coed showers, latrines, bunk rooms?

Note that after I though through the whole issue, the only thing that "needs"
to be done is to remove the areas of discomfort. For women, this is already
done in distinct facilities that deal with sexual contexts. If this was
done for homosexuals, I can't see a single reason to keep them from service.
On the other hand, it would cost a good chunk of money to build the extra
facilities, not to mention the uneasyness at such "labelling".

    >I bet it was! Have you read "Black Like Me" about a guy who
    >disguised himself as black and went back to the community
    >that he had lived in years earlier? It was most enlightening
    >(no pun intended). And then there was Eddie Murphy's take off
    >called "White Like Me." Hilarious, but then I stray... --

Yes, I like books like that. The best one so far is "My Enemy, Myself".
It's about an Israeli reporter that poses as a Palestinian day laborer
in Israel, somewhat before the Intifada. Now, I am a staunch supporter
of Israel, but, the picture painted was a combination of blacks in the
South in the 1960's and Mexican immigrants in the 1970's. A total
hermetic third-class group of people@-- a total tinderbox.

In any case, this is one of the foundational weaknesses of a coercive
democracy. With FOA, this is a non-problem -- you don't want to serve
left-handed Latvians in your restaurant, go right ahead.

But the State MUST be "blind" to all but ability. On the other hand, what
if 99% of the voters in the State do not want this "blind" evenhandedness?
For example, our unconstituitional internment of Americans of Japanese
ancestry?

Thta's why I want absolute rights, upon which NO democracy can trifle with.

And which is why I assert that we have inalienable rights that are NOT
granted by an act of Congress, but are superior to Congress (which is
why I was against ERA -- what Congress gives, it then has a basis for taking
away).



--
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)