<><>Military Discharges Another Homo<><>

[Whitey]

btsp...@westcoast.net wrote:

>------------------------------------
>"Adam and Eve" NOT "Adam and Steve"
> (Oppose Homosexual Marriages)

Lighten up, Maynard. They don't want to fuck you anyways, so what are
you worried about? Shit, would you people just grow up?

Byte me.

[Terry Moore]

Here's more on that subject:

*********************************************************

The article you posted appeared in Austin, Texas, this way:

Newspaper article - Saturday, 15 February 1997

San Francisco - The military’s ban on homosexual conduct
on and off duty was upheld Friday by a federal appeals
court.

The 2-1 decision was the third consecutive ruling upholding
the government’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy on gays in the
military. But it was the first appellate ruling on the provisions
that require discharge for homosexual conduct.

The Navy has defended the policy as necessary to maintain
unit cohesion, preserve privacy, and reduce sexual tension.

Judge Pamela Rymer ruled that those reasons are not
irrational or based merely on prejudice. She also cited the
courts’ traditional deference to military judgment.

***************************************************************

INVESTIGATORS FIND NO ‘WITCH HUNT’ FOR GAYS

Air Force Times, February 17, 1997

By Nick Adde - Times Staff Writer

An Air Force investigation has determined that officials at
Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii did not use ‘witch hunt’ tactics
to explore allegations of homosexuality there last year.

A team from the Air Force Inspector General’s Office concluded
that Colonel Bruce Brown, Commander of the 15th Air Base
Wing at Hickam, based his approval of a criminal investigation
upon ‘credible information’ regarding mis-conduct.

Gay-Rights activists, who alleged that Hickam officials conducted
an improper investigation and requested that the Inspector
General’s Office conduct its own fact-finding mission, called the
report’s conclusions absurd.

The initial February 1996 probe, which led to court-martial
proceedings against one officer and honorable discharges
of four enlisted members, stemmed from a plea bargain
offered to an airman who was convicted of forcible sodomy
and indecent assault against a man in an unrelated incident.

Faced with a jail sentence at the Disciplinary Barracks at
Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, Senior Airman Bryan Harris
offered to give base prosecutors the names of male service
members with whom he had engaged in sex. In exchange
for the information, prosecutors agreed to cut Harris’
30-month jail term to 20 months.

Because Brown considered the information to be reliable,
he authorized the Office of Special Investigations at
Hickam to determine whether the five airmen engaged
in homosexual acts.

While the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue’ policy revised
regulations to stop officials from investigating the personal
lives of individual service members, anyone caught engaging
in homosexual conduct is subject to discharge.

The Inspector General’s report, dated September 11, 1996,
but released by the Air Force only last month, was based on
interviews conducted in July and August.

The names of the four enlisted airmen who received honorable
discharges were blacked out in the copy of the report obtained
by Air Force Times. The name of the officer, Captain Robert
Saragosa, was not blacked out.

The Inspector General’s report rebuts charges by the
Service-members’ Legal Defense Fund, a gay-rights
organization, that the Hickam investigation intruded on
the personal lives of men who had done nothing to warrant
such attention. The report’s findings were endorsed by
Lieutenant General Richard Swope, the Air Force Inspector
General.

Saragosa faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer,
fraternization, and sodomy. His trial is scheduled for March
5th.

The report details an account by Harris of his encounter at a
bar with Saragosa, whom he identified as ‘Captain Bob’.
The two later ‘returned to the Captain’s apartment complex
where they swam nude in the complex pool and later
sodomized each other’, according to the report.

C. Dixon Osborn, a lawyer with the Service-members’
Legal Defense Fund, accused officials of over-
reaching their authority to investigate sexual
misconduct.

Osborn also disputed the Air Force’s contention that
investigators would treat heterosexuals accused of similar
misconduct the same way they handled the five men Harris
implicated.

‘There is no known case of a heterosexual service member
who has been convicted of rape to be allowed to reduce his
sentence by naming women with whom he has had
consensual sex.’

The Defense Fund plans to ask the Defense Department
Inspector General to review the case.

Terry at Lake Bastrop, Texas

*******************************************************************

[Lee Parsons]

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:56:06 GMT, pa...@mustang.mv.com (Whitey) wrote:

>btsp...@westcoast.net wrote:

>>"Adam and Eve" NOT "Adam and Steve"
>> (Oppose Homosexual Marriages)
>
>Lighten up, Maynard. They don't want to fuck you anyways, so what are
>you worried about? Shit, would you people just grow up?
>
>Byte me.

And all the people shouted, "AMEN."
He's probably struggling with latent tendancies.

[Terry Moore]

This is a reminder of the rationale behind ‘Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell’

I wrote this in 1993 and mailed untold copies to Congress
and activist groups.

The Military Ban on Homosexuals
By Terry Moore

1. Privacy.

Homosexuals are serving in the US military and have been
serving since the beginning of time. They have proven time
after time that they can do any job that any other able bodied
people can do. They can shoot guns, fly planes, drive tanks,
help run submarines, etc. You name it and they can
do it - - - - and do it well.

A one-way mirror in a motel room violates the privacy of the
occupants of that motel room. But nothing is said as long as
the occupants do not know about the one-way mirror. Likewise,
women in the military would probably be quite happy to shower
in front of a mirror as long as they did not know that it was a
one-way mirror with the whole platoon watching from the other
side. As long as homosexuals serve covertly in the military,
they present no problems to the privacy of heterosexuals. When
the presence of a homosexual becomes known, the heterosexuals
become justifiably outraged to find that their basic right to privacy
has been so callously violated. It's exactly the same as
discovering a one-way mirror.

The revelation of a person as a homosexual can be likened to a
taunt. Like, "I've been watching you through a one-way mirror!!
Yah!! Yah!! Yah!!." No matter whether the taunts are real or
perceived, almost all heterosexuals respond strongly. Sometimes,
unfortunately, the response is in the form of physical violence.

Unlike racial prejudice, which is a learned behavior and can be
reversed, an individual's desire for basic privacy is innate. In the
absence of homosexuals, men and women alike can undress,
bathe, and use the bath room without fear or embarrassment that
they are being viewed as sexual objects. Civilians and military
alike already separate men and women in their sleeping quarters,
locker rooms, and latrines for the very same reasons - - - -
voyeurism is offensive, criminal, and violates the privacy of anyone
wishing to avoid taking part in someone else's peep show.

When I was in the military, I often stripped naked and took showers
with equally naked male strangers. I also bunked in very close
quarters with male strangers. I never stripped naked and took
showers with naked female strangers. I also never bunked with female
strangers. Now, no one ever explained to me why the naked male
strangers did not shower with the naked female strangers. Nor
did anyone ever explain to me why the male strangers did not
bunk with the female strangers. I just sort of figured it had
something to do with common sense and decency and let it
go at that.

I have heard women argue that heterosexual men being forced
to share the intimacies of military life with homosexuals is no
different than the ogling, catcalls, and wolf-whistles women have
historically endured when they walk past a construction site. If that
reasoning was valid, which it is not, then they would be saying that
two wrongs make a right. More importantly, though, they don't
realize that they are, in fact, conceding that BOTH of the practices
are WRONG! In reality, though, there is quite a bit of difference
between a fully clothed woman voluntarily strolling past a construction
site and naked men being forced to share the intimacies of military
life with equally naked men of unorthodox sexual persuasions.

Quartering the homosexuals and heterosexuals separately like
women and men are presently separated would create more
problems than it would solve. The stigmas and nicknames that
would accrue to the all-homosexual groups would be mind boggling.

Married personnel in the military are usually provided with private
quarters or cash payments in lieu thereof. Single personnel have
always been relegated to the forced intimacy of the dormitories.
To provide private quarters, or monetary compensation in lieu
thereof, for all military personnel, both married and single, would
require either a massive construction program or a massive infusion
of funds. Even then, the problem would only be partially solved.
There would still be the forced intimacy aboard most Navy vessels
and in most field operations.

2. Worldwide Deployment of US Military Personnel.

US military personnel must be available for deployment worldwide
at all times. Most, if not all, Middle East Countries frown on
homosexual acts very strongly. In some of them, including Saudi
Arabia, the punishment for homosexual acts is execution. During
Desert Shield/Desert Storm, many homosexuals who were caught
performing homosexual acts in Saudi Arabia had to be air lifted back
to the US for discharge. This can be confirmed by calling the Pentagon
Spokesman at 1-202-697-5737.

3. Homosexuals versus Blacks.

Early in 1992, when homosexuals were seeking the favor of
one of the Presidential Candidates, they were espousing how
homosexuals were being barred from the military services like
blacks had been before President Truman's Executive Order
in 1948. I attacked that line of reasoning with a letter
to the editors of Air Force Times at just about the same
time General Colin Powell was sending a similar message
to Representative Pat Schroeder. That line of reasoning has
now become rare but I am including it here for the benefit of
any who may not have seen it elsewhere. (I also sent a letter
to the editor of the Austin American-Statesman. However, the
American-Statesman did not publish the letter until 28 December
1992 after that issue had already died out. In the period between
when I sent my letter and the American-Statesman printed it, I saw
several articles pertaining to black history that may have been
inspired by my letter.)

Blacks were serving in the US military services long before
President Truman's Executive Order in 1948. To wit:

A black named Isaiah Dorman died with Custer at Little Big
Horn in 1876. Dorman was an interpreter. He translated the
Indian languages for Custer.

Another black named Henry O. Flipper graduated from West
Point in 1877.

During World War One, Private Benjamin Johnson, a black,
became the first American to be decorated by France with
France's highest military decoration, The Croix de Guerre.

In 1940, Benjamin O. Davis Senior was promoted to the rank of
Brigadier General in the US Army. General Davis’ son, Benjamin
O. Davis, Jr., Commanded the famous "Tuskegee Airmen" whose
mission was to escort American bombers over enemy territory in
WWII. The squadron never lost a single bomber they escorted.
Benjamin O. Davis Junior later became the first black General
Officer in the US Air Force.

A black sailor from Waco, Texas, named Doris "Dorie" Miller was
decorated with the Navy Cross for gallantry at Pearl Harbor in
1941. (There is now an auditorium in Austin, Texas, named in
Miller's honor. The USS Miller, DE-1091, was commissioned
at Norfolk, Virginia, 30 June 1973)

During the early days, there were many all-black military units. There
was some integration, but it was minimal. In 1944, President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt ordered an end to segregated units in the military
services. He also ordered an end to enlistment quotas on blacks. His
order was resisted to the point of being ignored. In 1948, President
Truman issued his Executive Order. He began by ordering the mixing
of a combat unit in Korea. There is some conjecture about Truman's
motives. Some say he was seeking more votes. One of the
reasons he provided in his memoirs has to do with General
MacArthur's mission in Occupied Japan. It seems the General
was having a difficult time trying to convince the troops to accept
the Japanese people as equals while they were permitted to
discriminate against the blacks. Take your choice of any number of
motives. None of them include "social engineering" such as that now
proposed on behalf of homosexuals. Keep in mind that civilian
integration in the US did not commence until the 50's during the
Eisenhower administration.

4. Comments about Senate Hearings.

Senator Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy testified before the Senate
Armed Services committee hearings chaired by Senator Sam
Nunn that the ban on homosexuals makes it possible for
heterosexuals to avoid military duty during time of war by simply
claiming to be homosexual. I note that the ban on homosexuals
was in effect throughout the Korean and Vietnam conflicts
simultaneously with the draft. If it was so easy to avoid military
service during those times, why did so many young men seek
refuge in Canada rather than just saying, "I like the boys"????
Of course, we'll never know if young Bill Clinton would have
used that "out" had he drawn a low lottery number will we??

5. Summary.

There is no valid reason to lift the ban on homosexuals
serving in the US military. The system has worked just fine
for the past 50 years or so. Those homosexuals who have
wanted to serve have always been able to do so as long as
they served covertly. Almost all discharges for homosexuality
have came about as a result of voluntary actions on the part
of the homosexuals. Some have become disenchanted with
military life and used their homosexuality as a means of
escaping their enlistment contracts. Some have misbehaved
in some manner - including actions that were drug and/or alcohol
related. Some have revealed their presence by propositioning an
unwilling heterosexual. The so-called "witch hunts" simply do not
happen in the military. As I have outlined above, homosexuals
serving covertly present no problems to the privacy of the
heterosexuals. What possible benefits could be derived from
permitting homosexuals to openly chronicle what should be a
very private matter?

[W. ROLLINS]

btsp...@westcoast.net wrote:
: Friday February 14 8:48 PM EST
: Court rules in gay serviceman case
:
It had nothing to do with homosexuality.

: SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 14 _ A federal court of appeals has ruled that a military
: service may discharge a member who admits to engaging in off-duty homosexual
: acts with civilians.
:
: In its decision today (Friday), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals continued its
: nearly 20-year tradition of upholding the constitutionality of the military's
: authority to discharge members who engage in homosexual acts.
:
The military can discharge anyone who admits to having sex out of wedlock
if they choose to do so and they often do. I personally initiated charges
against several of my subordinates while on active duty for sexual
misconduct and some did get discharged for it.

: While in active duty in the U.S. Navy, Mark Philips told superiors that he is
: a homosexual and had engaged in sexual relations with men and would continue
: to do so.
:
I'd have initiated proceedings to just like I did to the heterosexuals who
disrupted good order and discipline through their sexual behavior.

: Philips told his superiors that his homosexual conduct did not involve
: military servicemembers and had not occurred aboard ship or on a military
: installation.
:
That has no bearing on the situation.

: President Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy triggered an administrative
: discharge proceeding against Philips. The hearing board recommended that
: Philips be honorably discharged.
:
Better than I'd have offered before going to court martial.

: Philips argued that the action violated the First Amendment because it was
: triggered by a statement of one'e sexual identity and therefore reach
: constitutionally protected speech and expressive behavior.
:
Under the UCMJ all sex acts except position A with your lawful spouse is a
violation and telling a superior you committed them is blatantly stupid
because your superiors are obligated to enforce the rules. Philips is
obviously either utterly stupid or never read the UCMJ.

: The government countered that the policy was valid because it advances the
: legitimate military goals of deterring homosexual acts, promoting unit
: cohesion, accommodating personal privacy and reducing sexual tension.
:
: The government contended that because the policy is related to advancing
: goals, it is not based on invidious prejudice, and the court agreed.

I agree to a limited degree with that position. I placed a number of
single females on report for getting pregnant because by doing so they had
obviously violated the UCMJ. Most received no punishment if they named the
father and proved the father would provide support. I also placed a larger
number of men on report because they bragged of their sexual exploits to
the detriment of good order and discipline and most got some sort of
punishment.

I remember one Petty Officer who went to NJP for getting a blow job from
his wife in the back seat of a bus on the way home from the CB Ball at
Sigonella. He did not get kicked out but his wife got her command
sponsorship pulled and was banned from the base.

Everyone that is on the gay rights bandwagon ought to read the UCMJ
because the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy has been in effect since the
UCMJ was written into law almost 50 years ago for heterosexuals.

As late as the early 70s catching VD meant an automatic NJP and I think it
still should but knee jerk liberal do gooders managed to convince the
powers that be that the policy caused military members to go to witch
doctors or not seek treatment so it got changed.

Read the UCMJ, adultery, sodomy and rape are very explicitly covered in
exquisite detail and punishable but folks that get legal proceedings about
what they have done with their wives or husbands or other SOs don't seek
publicity.

Only homosexuals seem to think their sexual misconduct is newsworthy. None
of the Aberdeen crew is bragging about getting laid but some folks seem to
think that being homosexual gives you license to brag about your exploits.
It just ain't happening Dude.

BiNM

[W. ROLLINS]

Terry Moore (terry...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: ‘There is no known case of a heterosexual service member

: who has been convicted of rape to be allowed to reduce his
: sentence by naming women with whom he has had
: consensual sex.’

:
Probably true but there are many cases where the government decided to
grant administrative discharges to folks for consensual sexual misconduct
instead of having a trial.

Everyone who opposes the government position on the "Don't ask, don't
tell" policy should read the UCMJ! The military can and has prosecuted
members for consensual heterosexual acts even with a lawful spouse.
According to the UCMJ oral and anal sex are criminal acts even if you are
lawfully married.

In the military you can be prosecuted for telling folks how great your
spouse is at giving head.

This whole crossposted spam is barking up the wrong tree. The whole jist
of it that folks in the military should be obscessed with sex and allowed
to spout off about their exploits. It just ain't happening just as it
don't happen in most of civilian America.

If you worked at a bank or a used car lot you'd likely get fired if you
insisted on relating your sex life to fellow employees and management.
Face facts folks, what you choose to do is none of my business so why do
you insist that it should be public knowledge. I really don't want to know
anything about you except how well you do your job if you work with me
whether in the military or civilian sector.

This whole arguement should be a non-issue because the military used to
ask folks if they were homosexual but never asked if they had received
heterosexual sex that violated the UCMJ. Homosexuals are now treated
equally but are insisting on being treated better. If they get their way a
question will be added to the enlistment questionaire "Have you ever
engaged in oral or anal sex or had sex with a person not your spouse?" and
everyone will have to lie to get in and be subjected to the
fraudulent enlistment clause unless they are virgins.

The general thrust of this whole thread is pretty fucked up because it
does not address the real issue of whether we want our military to be able
to fuck or fight. I'd rather have them ready to fight and depriving young
men of sex makes them want to kick some ass no matter what their
orientation is and thats just the mindset I want our fighting forces to
have.

Wish we did not need to have a military at all but it ain't likely to
happen in my lifetime.

Some of the Sailors I served with in my 22 years were homosexuals and I
knew it and they knew I knew it but the conversation never came up so it
wasn't a big deal. I helped discharge far more heterosexuals for sexual
misconduct than homosexuals but the homosexuals that were charged received
no more harsh treatment than the hets.

It wouldn't even be an issue if a very small number of folks didn't think
they should be able to brag to everyone what they had done the night
before.

BiNM

[Terry Moore]

The ‘10% Myth’ played a strong role in the events leading
up to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.

I wrote this in 1993 and distributed it widely. It’s worth
repeating at this time.

US HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION

By: Terry Moore

Homosexuals and their sympathizers have repeatedly claimed that
homosexuals comprise 10% or more of the US population. I don't
know of any way to prove the exact population density, but there
is considerable reason to believe that the 10% figure grossly
exaggerates the true numbers.

It is true that homosexuals do not wear a red tattoo on their
foreheads to identify themselves. But it is also true that almost
all heterosexuals wear a symbolic red tattoo of one sort or
another. By a simple process of elimination, just about any
heterosexual can see that they, personally, are not included
in a group that is 90% heterosexuals and 10% homosexuals.
Try it. Think of all your friends, family and co-workers. Identify
those you are certain to be heterosexuals. If there is any doubt
at all, assume the one(s) in doubt to be possibly homosexual.
Even doing that, a heterosexual will not come up with anything
close to a 90%-10% mixture.

It is well established that blacks comprise 12% of the US population.
Give that some thought. There is simply no way that the number of
homosexuals is approaching that of the blacks.

Houston is the largest city in Texas and is also known to have
the highest concentration of homosexuals in the state. The 1990
population for Houston was 1,630,553. Since homosexuals claim
a nationwide average of 10% or more of the US population,
wouldn't that mean Houston's homosexual population would have
to be higher than the norm of 10%? Let us surmise a homosexual
population of 15% for Houston. That would be 244,583 homosexuals.
It is no secret that homosexuals hold positions in some of Houston's
most prestigious law firms and corporations. There are more than
200 services or establishments in Houston catering to the
homosexual population. These include 25 bars and 24 religious
institutions. The Montrose section of Houston is almost exclusively
homosexuals. Yet, in 1985 Houston voters overwhelmingly repealed
a Gay Rights Ordinance. In a 1991 survey, 76% of Houstonians said
that homosexuals should not be able to legally adopt children.
Houston was one of the very few Texas cities that DID NOT
impose sanctions against Colorado following the 1992 Gay
Rights referendum there. Try as they may, homosexuals have
not been able to capture a seat on the Houston City Council.
(Annise Parker was the most recent candidate to run as openly
homosexual.) Isn't it implausible that a group of people nearly a
quarter of a million strong, with members in powerful places, do
not have things going more their way in political matters? The
actual homosexual population in Houston is probably closer to
3%. This calculates out to 48,917 homosexuals. That's about
2,000 homosexuals per gay bar and about 2,000 homosexuals
per religious institution. Wouldn't nearly a quarter of a million
homosexuals overwhelm those places?

Now, consider a study conducted by a team led by Jeffrey Kelly,
a Professor of Psychiatry and Mental Health at the Medical
College of Wisconsin. The study was published in the November
1992 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. The study
covered 1,858 homosexual men in 16 US cities of 180,000
population or less. The cities were at least 50 miles from any
major urban area and were located in up state New York, North
Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Montana, and Washington.
Among other results, the study found that one out of ten
homosexuals in the study were infected with the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Now, if those 1,858 homosexuals
represent a cross section of the US homosexual population, that
would mean that one out of ten homosexuals, nationwide would
be HIV positive. Let's keep that one-in-ten figure in mind as we
proceed.

Figures released by the Atlanta CDC AIDS division in December
1992 showed that one million Americans were infected with the
HIV. The Atlanta CDC figures showed that 70,000 (7%) of those
HIV cases were heterosexuals and 580,000 (58%) were
homosexuals. Applying the one out of ten figure derived above,
that 580,000 figure suggests a nationwide homosexual population
of 5.8 million. 5.8 million homosexuals comes to 2.33% of the total
US population. Let us continue with that in mind.

The 1990 Census shows 2% of American households to be
same-sex households. That figure is almost equal to the 1970 figure.
Now are those 2% Census Bureau figures and the 2.33% figure
arrived at above coincidental? Or are they closer to the truth
than the 10% plus figures proclaimed by homosexuals and their
sympathizers?

In 1989 and 1990, The National Opinion Research Center
at The University of Chicago questioned 904 US men aged
21 or older. Only 1.3% reported sex with men during the
preceding year and only 5.2% at any time during their
adulthood. In 1987, out of 6,300 randomly drawn Norwegians,
0.9% of the men and 0.9% of the women claimed having
engaged in homosexual sex during the preceding 3 years -
3.5% of the men and 3.0% of the women claimed having had
a homosexual experience at some point in their lives. In a 1989
Danish survey of 3,178 randomly drawn adults, less than 3%
of men claimed to be bisexual and 2.7% reported at least one
homosexual experience ever in their life. A 1987 Danish survey
of 1,155 adults reported that 0.6% of the men considered
themselves homosexuals or bisexual, 4% reported at least one
homosexual experience in their lifetime, and 1% reported a
homosexual experience during the preceding year. In a
1989-1990 British survey of 2,171 youths aged 16-20, 2.5% of
the males and 2.4% of the females reported ever having had a
homosexual experience. In 1986-1987, less than 2% of 26,741
Minnesota public school students said they were bisexual or
homosexual. This included students to age 18. 1.6% of males
and 0.9% of females reported a homosexual experience. In the
on-going US government survey of 109,364 adults, less than 3%
of men have admitted to EITHER homosexual acts OR IV drug
use since 1977.(References for the above data are listed at the
end of this essay.)

In view of all the data I have perused, it seems obvious that the
homosexual claims of 10% or more are grossly inflated. The correct
figure seems to be between 2% and 2.5%.

REFERENCES FOR HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION DATA:

McCue, P, Teacher, 1991,1,9

Cameron P&K, Psychol Reports, 1988,63,255-270

Roberts & Turner CJ, Sex Research, 1991,28,491-519

Sundet JM et al, In Global Impact of AIDS Liss:1988,53-60

Melbye M & Bigger RJ, American J Epidemiology, 1992,
135, 593-602

Schmidt KW et al, Danish Medical Bulletin, 1989,36,84-88

Breakwell GM & Fife-Schaw Archives, Sexual Behavior,
1992, 21, 271-293

Remafedi G et al, Pediatrics, 1992, 89, 714-721

Dawson DA & Hardy, Advance Date, 204,88

[JEL]

Terry Moore wrote:
> =

> Here's more on that subject:

> =

> *********************************************************
> =

> The article you posted appeared in Austin, Texas, this way:

> =

> Newspaper article - Saturday, 15 February 1997

> =

> San Francisco - The military=92s ban on homosexual conduct

> on and off duty was upheld Friday by a federal appeals
> court.

> =

> The 2-1 decision was the third consecutive ruling upholding

> the government=92s =91don=92t ask, don=92t tell=92 policy on gays in th=

e
> military. But it was the first appellate ruling on the provisions
> that require discharge for homosexual conduct.

> =

> The Navy has defended the policy as necessary to maintain
> unit cohesion, preserve privacy, and reduce sexual tension.

> =

> Judge Pamela Rymer ruled that those reasons are not
> irrational or based merely on prejudice. She also cited the

> courts=92 traditional deference to military judgment.
> =

> ***************************************************************
> =

> INVESTIGATORS FIND NO =91WITCH HUNT=92 FOR GAYS
> =

> Air Force Times, February 17, 1997

> =

> By Nick Adde - Times Staff Writer

> =

> An Air Force investigation has determined that officials at

> Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii did not use =91witch hunt=92 tactics

> to explore allegations of homosexuality there last year.

> =

> A team from the Air Force Inspector General=92s Office concluded

> that Colonel Bruce Brown, Commander of the 15th Air Base
> Wing at Hickam, based his approval of a criminal investigation

> upon =91credible information=92 regarding mis-conduct.
> =

> Gay-Rights activists, who alleged that Hickam officials conducted
> an improper investigation and requested that the Inspector

> General=92s Office conduct its own fact-finding mission, called the
> report=92s conclusions absurd.
> =

> The initial February 1996 probe, which led to court-martial
> proceedings against one officer and honorable discharges
> of four enlisted members, stemmed from a plea bargain
> offered to an airman who was convicted of forcible sodomy
> and indecent assault against a man in an unrelated incident.

> =

> Faced with a jail sentence at the Disciplinary Barracks at
> Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, Senior Airman Bryan Harris
> offered to give base prosecutors the names of male service
> members with whom he had engaged in sex. In exchange

> for the information, prosecutors agreed to cut Harris=92

> 30-month jail term to 20 months.

> =

> Because Brown considered the information to be reliable,
> he authorized the Office of Special Investigations at
> Hickam to determine whether the five airmen engaged
> in homosexual acts.

> =

> While the =91don=92t ask, don=92t tell, don=92t pursue=92 policy revise=

d
> regulations to stop officials from investigating the personal
> lives of individual service members, anyone caught engaging
> in homosexual conduct is subject to discharge.

> =

> The Inspector General=92s report, dated September 11, 1996,

> but released by the Air Force only last month, was based on
> interviews conducted in July and August.

> =

> The names of the four enlisted airmen who received honorable
> discharges were blacked out in the copy of the report obtained
> by Air Force Times. The name of the officer, Captain Robert
> Saragosa, was not blacked out.

> =

> The Inspector General=92s report rebuts charges by the
> Service-members=92 Legal Defense Fund, a gay-rights

> organization, that the Hickam investigation intruded on
> the personal lives of men who had done nothing to warrant

> such attention. The report=92s findings were endorsed by

> Lieutenant General Richard Swope, the Air Force Inspector
> General.

> =

> Saragosa faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer,
> fraternization, and sodomy. His trial is scheduled for March
> 5th.

> =

> The report details an account by Harris of his encounter at a

> bar with Saragosa, whom he identified as =91Captain Bob=92.
> The two later =91returned to the Captain=92s apartment complex

> where they swam nude in the complex pool and later

> sodomized each other=92, according to the report.
> =

> C. Dixon Osborn, a lawyer with the Service-members=92

> Legal Defense Fund, accused officials of over-
> reaching their authority to investigate sexual
> misconduct.

> =

> Osborn also disputed the Air Force=92s contention that

> investigators would treat heterosexuals accused of similar
> misconduct the same way they handled the five men Harris
> implicated.

> =

> =91There is no known case of a heterosexual service member

> who has been convicted of rape to be allowed to reduce his
> sentence by naming women with whom he has had

> consensual sex.=92
> =

> The Defense Fund plans to ask the Defense Department
> Inspector General to review the case.

> =

> =

> Terry at Lake Bastrop, Texas

> =

> *******************************************************************

Sounds like the Air Force is recruiting x-navy officers for command
positions. This definitely sounds like something the navy would do, not
the Air Force.

[JEL]

Terry Moore wrote:
> =

> The =9110% Myth=92 played a strong role in the events leading
> up to =91Don=92t Ask, Don=92t Tell=92.
> =

> I wrote this in 1993 and distributed it widely. It=92s worth
> repeating at this time.
> =

> US HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION
> =

> By: Terry Moore
> =

> Homosexuals and their sympathizers have repeatedly claimed that
> homosexuals comprise 10% or more of the US population. I don't
> know of any way to prove the exact population density, but there
> is considerable reason to believe that the 10% figure grossly
> exaggerates the true numbers.

> =

> > It is true that homosexuals do not wear a red tattoo on their
> > foreheads to identify themselves

Not yet they don't. But if the religious right and our
conservative/lib-
ertarian congress gets its way any time soon, they will.

Then we'll really see a witch hunt, not just in the military.

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <5e7fgt$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,

terry...@mail.utexas.edu (Terry Moore) writes:
> The ‘10% Myth’ played a strong role in the events leading
> up to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.
>

> I wrote this in 1993 and distributed it widely. It’s worth
> repeating at this time.
>

> US HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION
>
> By: Terry Moore
>

> Homosexuals and their sympathizers have repeatedly claimed that
> homosexuals comprise 10% or more of the US population. I don't
> know of any way to prove the exact population density, but there
> is considerable reason to believe that the 10% figure grossly
> exaggerates the true numbers.

[ fanciful "analysis" deleted ]

> In view of all the data I have perused, it seems obvious that the
> homosexual claims of 10% or more are grossly inflated. The correct
> figure seems to be between 2% and 2.5%.

Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?

--
Conrad Sabatier http://www.neosoft.com/~conrads

[Letao]

W. ROLLINS wrote:
>
> This whole arguement should be a non-issue because the military used to
> ask folks if they were homosexual but never asked if they had received
> heterosexual sex that violated the UCMJ. Homosexuals are now treated
> equally but are insisting on being treated better. If they get their way a
> question will be added to the enlistment questionaire "Have you ever
> engaged in oral or anal sex or had sex with a person not your spouse?" and
> everyone will have to lie to get in and be subjected to the
> fraudulent enlistment clause unless they are virgins.

Heterosexual soldier says publicly: "I am heterosexual."

No action is taken against the soldier.

Homosexual soldier says publicly: "I am homosexual."

Soldier is discharged.

Doesn't exactly seem equal to me, unless you're telling me that by
saying "I am heterosexual," the soldier will also be discharged.

--
Safe journey,

David
djs...@shore.net

When someone with the authority of a teacher, say,
describes the world and you are not in it, there is a
moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked
into a mirror and saw nothing.
--Adrienne Rich, "Invisibility in Academe"

[Terry Moore]

In article <fkt7e5...@dolphin.neosoft.com>, con...@neosoft.com

(Conrad Sabatier) says:
>
>Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
>10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
>

*********************************************************************

Where - oh where - did you run across that word "discrimination"
in my essay?

Terry at Lake Basrop, Texas

******************************************************************

[Bruce Garrett]

terry...@mail.utexas.edu (Terry Moore) untold copies plus one...

TM> I wrote this in 1993 and mailed untold copies to Congress
TM> and activist groups.

Great. Compulsive/Obsessive, but that's our opposition.
Here's a few responses from something I wrote around the same time...and
distributed, to a few relevant parties and the internet...

TM> 1. Privacy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument seems to be that because we regularly segregate girls and boys
we ought to be allowed to segregate heterosexuals and homosexuals in
situations that are comparable. The situations are not directly comparable
but never mind, the reason why we segregate the sexes on a regular basis,
Male and Female restrooms and single sex barracks and such like is to
insure sexual privacy and keep unwelcome sexual attentions out of areas
that are unavoidable private in nature. Therefore heterosexuals have a
legitimate right to expect that society, under similar conditions, will
keep homosexuals away from them too. But our segregation of the sexes
begins in our culture well before puberty, before boys and girls even begin
to notice each other sexually, so we cannot say either that it is a policy
that relates exclusively to the problem of managing sexual desire and
minimizing unwanted sexual attention, or that sexual segregation is the
Necessary solution to that problem, since the solution begins, before the
problem even becomes an issue.

First graders could hardly be interested in one another sexually, yet no
one suggests the genders are free to use the same bathrooms in grade
school. But people of a given sex share common faculties throughout
childhood and into adulthood; and among them have always existed
homosexuals. That being the case, homosexuals have historically and in all
cultures matured in environments where the attractive sex was always around
them. Homosexuals have always had to learn to manage the sexual tensions
surrounding public faculties and common barracks not only in the armed
services but in all walks of life all throughout their lives. Whether or
not Straight boys ever used the same restroom as Straight girls the
historical fact is that we have Always been there using the same porcelain
along with both of them.

This is why the situations between Gay and Straight are not directly
comparable to Boy and Girl in this regard. Heterosexuals have never been
kept segregated from homosexuals in the way they are segregated from each
other; they cannot claim anything is actually changing for them in this
regard. What they =Can= claim is that they have always had an expectation
they will not be bothered by sexual attentions in those kinds of common
areas; and that Is something they can legitimately insist not change. But
they cannot insist that co-use of these faculties is an issue for them in
and of itself because we have always used them together and they have
always known it.

It is arguable that heterosexuals have more difficulty with the matter, not
because it is innate in human sexuality and unresolvable in lieu of
segregation, but because they have not been allowed to develop mechanisms
to deal with it in the same way as their homosexual peers. Perhaps the
relentless segregation of the sexes works against them in this regard, but
it is not clear at all that the cultural mechanism at work in our
segregation of the sexes springs exclusively from the need to maintain a
social atmosphere free of sexual harassment. For heterosexuals it may also
be because our culture grew from one that segregated men and women all
throughout society, not just at the john.

But to focus exclusively on harassment in the barracks and bathrooms, as
the opposition would have us do, is to miss a larger problem with the
argument; that problem is that the line between Intimate quarters and
public workplaces is nowhere near as sharply defined and smoothly
manageable with a policy of strict segregation as the opposition would have
us believe. There are sleeping quarters to be sure, and bathrooms and
showers yes. But what of gymnasiums and other recreational and physical
training faculties? What of lonely warehouse rooms, where no one else can
see what one person may do to another? What of field exercises where
people can become isolated? What of offices where commanders speak alone
with subordinates?

Sexual tension, loss of privacy, harassment and outright assault are
possible in any of these situations [Note: Can you say "Aberdeen"?] and
many more besides and the unavoidable conclusion is that privacy in a
military setting is not a question of place but of circumstances. If the
problem is that sexually attractive genders cannot be mixed in "close"
situations for the sake of discipline and morale then you are not merely
restricting them to separate quarters...but separate occupations entirely.
You cannot contain privacy to specific rigorously segregated locations no
matter how hard you try; particularly in an occupation as wide in scope as
the military. If attractive genders cannot be alone together without it
impacting on morale then they cannot work together in the same occupation
either; there are too many opportunities for invasion of privacy and sexual
harassment to occur besides the barracks or the restrooms to even begin to
manage them all. This argument, if it is true, makes a case not just for
keeping homosexuals out of the military, but either women or men as well.

Trying to keep people apart by sexual orientation poses it's own problems.
You cannot have separate barracks and showers for Gay and Straight as you
might for Boy and Girl because in the case of homosexual personnel the
problem of privacy and unwelcome sexual attention will not be solved by
keeping them strictly among their own kind (and it is telling about the
attitudes of some people proposing this that they do not seem to consider
the privacy rights of homosexuals to be an issue). It would seem that the
only solution is to keep the services strictly a single heterosexual
gender.

But this still does not end the problems. Segregating genders is one
thing, segregating orientations another. Gender is not a matter of degree;
you are either a boy or a girl. But sexual orientation is a spectrum of
desire that segues from one point to another like colors from a prism. If
you accept the Kinsey scale, which ranges from 0 (exclusively heterosexual)
to 6 (exclusively homosexual) you are left with a difficulty. Even people
who are predominantly heterosexual, unless they are Kinsey 0s, can have
occasional homosexual desires (just as homosexuals who are not Kinsey 6s
can have occasional heterosexual desires). The closer you get to that
Kinsey 0, the rarer the occasion...but there it is nonetheless. That being
the case, segregating homosexuals is not enough and you end up slicing out
of the Fitness For Duty pie, a good number of people who are essentially
heterosexual and who might never lay a hand on another solider throughout
their career simply on the basis that they "might", because their
heterosexuality is not perfect Enough.

So. The only way to keep sexual pressure out of "close quarters" in the
military (and if you like, to be consistent about it as well...) by way of
managing it through gender and orientation segregation is ultimately to
limit manpower exclusively to a single gender and to require that gender
also be comprised exclusively of Kinsey 0s. And even this will not solve
the problem, because some people do not reach a point where they know their
sexual orientation until their twenties...and some even later still.

Such a policy cannot help but be a gross waste of resources and a
squandering of public good will that even a superpower such as ours cannot
afford in the long run. It is akin to solving the problem of how to keep
your hands clean by cutting off your arms. Gross waste, social tension and
animosity toward the military and consistent internal policy failures are
the Necessary outcomes of this kind of approach, because in fact it is not
managing the problem of sexual harassment at all,_It_Is_Trying_To_Finesse_
It._ It is taking the "Quick Fix" approach. The problem with finessing any
problem is not only that it does not solve the problem at hand...it often
prevents actual solutions from being cultivated. I am put in mind of
NASA's Challenger disaster; they knew there was a problem with the solid
rocket joint design, and instead of addressing the design they tried to
finesse their way around the problem by restricting the operation of the
shuttle. The track record of that solution does not need mention.

It's been well said that there is no real privacy in the military; I don't
think the people in the opposition quite realize how this truth cuts into
the matter. What it means is that privacy in the military can only be said
to exist so long as the people who are working together maintain a degree
of discipline. It is circumstantial and procedural, not actual; it cannot
be assured by way of physical constraints but Only by way of conduct.
People who are sleeping together, showering together and working closely
together are vulnerable to a wide range of personal intrusions and assaults
in many areas besides sex that can ignite people like a grass fire on a dry
and windy prairie afternoon. Religion, Race, Ethnicity, Class... all of
these and more can be the spark that light everything up if there are not
policies in place that Mandate mutual respect and discipline at all times.

Segregating members of the attractive sex might seem superficially like a
good way to maintain sexual discipline, but another way of looking at it is
that it is not discipline maintenance so much as discipline avoidance. You
deal with the problem by removing the ingredients. But this solves the
problem only so long as the ingredients remain absent and this cannot be
guaranteed; therefore the problem is not actually being managed, just left
slumbering and ready to awaken at the first opportunity which management is
then left in the position of always trying to head off. If the goal to be
achieved is the maintainance of sexual discipline, and the privacy and
morale issues related to having that discipline, then it is Only solved by
cultivating that discipline in the first place; by rewarding it's presence
with responsibility, and =consistently= punishing it's absence.

The argument can be made that the military can both segregate and teach
this kind of discipline. It can't. You cannot teach sexual discipline in
a protected, sheltered environment, structured such that sexual discipline
is a moot issue entirely. It is like trying to learn repelling in a
gravity free zone, like striving to rise above alcoholism by going to live
on a desert island. It is like a mother carefully placing breakable things
up out of reach and checking all the cabinets at floor level for anything
that might be poisonous (that kid gets into EVERYthing.. <sigh>); a
management tool for a family with two year olds, unlikely at all to produce
any sort of discipline in adults who must be entrusted with
responsibilities. You cannot be taught discipline, you cannot even know
you posses it, if it is not cultivated within rather then bestowed by
benevolent circumstances without... and tested... and tested again... and
again... Until you are able to consistently take control of situations,
rather then letting them control you. It is not unreasonable to demand
this capacity from someone who aspires to become a solider.

Sexual aggression, whether it is directed by Gays against Straights or by
Straights against Gays - whether it takes the form of unwelcome sexual
advances or sexual hostility, is at root an issue of discipline and
respect. There are many such. Race, Gender, Religion, Ethnicity, Class; in
the military there are many ways to intrude, to harass and degrade
cohesiveness, order and moral. We cannot manage any of them with the tools
of segregation. A military that was perfectly homogenous might be an easier
one to manage compatibly issues in, but even if such a thing could be
accomplished that military would have so little in common with American
Society at large that it would soon find Itself segregated from that
society. That would benefit neither the military nor society.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

and just to touch up...

TM> 2. Worldwide Deployment of US Military Personnel.

Say...why not stop deploying our personnel in totalitarian
theocracies in the first place?

TM> 3. Homosexuals versus Blacks.

TM> Blacks were serving in the US military services long before
TM> President Truman's Executive Order in 1948. To wit:

No shit. And so have homosexuals. Point of fact, homosexuals have
been serving in military organizations since recorded history.

TM> A black named Isaiah Dorman died with Custer at Little Big Horn...

Does the name Alexander the Great ring any bells, jackass?

TM> I note that the ban on homosexuals was in effect throughout the Korean
TM> and Vietnam conflicts simultaneously with the draft. If it was so easy
TM> to avoid military service during those times, why did so many young men
TM> seek refuge in Canada rather than just saying, "I like the boys"????

Because in those days homosexuals were being given lobotomies to
cure them?

TM> There is no valid reason to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the
TM> US military.

The Rand Corp study concluded otherwise. So have many others. The
only thing that keeps it in place now is ignorant prejudice (ibid, your
pathetic "privacy" argument). Once we were mentally unstable. Then when
that lie fell it was that we were security risks. Then when that lie fell
it was that we couldn't cut the mustard as fighters. Now all you have
left against us is pee shyness. It's a measure of your shamelessness, not
ours, that you keep putting it forward as an excuse to destroy the careers
and lives of many good and decent people.

It must be driving babbling kooks like you crazy to look back at
all the ground you've lost to the objects of your hatred so quickly. Go
ahead...take another look at it for me, Terry.

---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ Behold, he climbs upon the mountians, skipping
upon the hills. My beloved is like a young stag...
-The Song of Solomon

[Bruce Garrett]

wrollins@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS)
assumes the position...

>> Court rules in gay serviceman case

WR> It had nothing to do with homosexuality.

It had everything to do with anti-Gay prejudice.

WR> The military can discharge anyone who admits to having sex out of
WR> wedlock if they choose to do so and they often do.

I'm laughing in your face. Show us some verifiable stats on this.

WR> Under the UCMJ all sex acts except position A with your lawful spouse
WR> is a violation and telling a superior you committed them is blatantly
WR> stupid because your superiors are obligated to enforce the rules.

Something else that's blatantly stupid here is your dime store
rhetoric. Anyone here who believes that the military would actually
discharge a married man for engaging in consensual sex with his spouse,
even if it was sex that was regarded under state law as sodomy isn't
playing with a full deck. Simply put, unless there was some other offense
involved, that just doesn't happen.

WR> I remember one Petty Officer who went to NJP for getting a blow job
WR> from his wife in the back seat of a bus on the way home from the CB
WR> Ball at Sigonella. He did not get kicked out but his wife got her
WR> command sponsorship pulled and was banned from the base.

Great. Except that 1) it was public sex of a sort and the two of
them still had the option of doing what they did in the privacy of their
home without fear of punishment; 2) they still had the option of sticking
to "position A"; 3) had they been homosexuals one or both of them would be
sitting in a federal penitentiary now being grilled to name names. You
know this, everyone here knows it. All you're doing, is elaborating for us
how heterosexuals are entitled to special privileges regarding sexual
conduct in the military.

WR> Everyone that is on the gay rights bandwagon ought to read the UCMJ...

Excellent advice. Then they can see for themselves how blatant the
double standards of enforcement are. Heterosexual offenders get a slap on
the wrist...if they get that much. Homosexuals, for essentially the same
sexual crimes, are tossed in jail, pressured to name the name of other
homosexuals, see their careers, their lives, go down in flames. And for
what reason? To appease the no-necked prejudices of barnyard half-wits
like you...that's what reason.

WR> Only homosexuals seem to think their sexual misconduct is newsworthy.

Only whining milksops like you seem to think that our sexual
conduct is an issue at all. Grow up.

WR> None of the Aberdeen crew is bragging about getting laid...

Oh, do let us know when they start telling them to name the names
of other heterosexuals they know, in exchange for leniency...ok? There
could be a lot of them at Aberdeen...you never know...

PS: check your 'from' header...Dude...there's a secret message
there for you.

[Bruce Garrett]

wrollins@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS)
telling folks...

WR> In the military you can be prosecuted for telling folks how great your
WR> spouse is at giving head.

Yah. And how many are thrown in jail for it? Just for that.
How many are discharged for saying that. Just once. Just that. Precisely
none, that's how many. You're not fooling anyone here, jackass.

WR> If you worked at a bank or a used car lot you'd likely get fired if you
WR> insisted on relating your sex life to fellow employees and management.

Sure. Just wear a wedding ring to work...just put your wife's
picture on your desk...just talk about your children...

WR> Face facts folks, what you choose to do is none of my business so why
WR> do you insist that it should be public knowledge.

You people make flaming spectacles of yourselves and your
sex lives constantly. The question here is why do we need to keep ours
secret. How many heterosexuals have been discharged just for saying out
loud that they are married? You don't hide, and there is no good reason
why we should either.

WR> Homosexuals are now treated equally but are insisting on being treated
WR> better.

Bullshit. I repeat: how many heterosexuals have been discharged
for saying that they are married?

WR> The general thrust of this whole thread is pretty fucked up because it
WR> does not address the real issue of whether we want our military to be
WR> able to fuck or fight.

Good point, Bilboe. So how much national security do you propose
to buy America, by shoveling the lives and careers of this nation's best
and brightest, into the paranoid hallucinations of it's gutter crawling
bigots?

WR> Some of the Sailors I served with in my 22 years were homosexuals and I
WR> knew it and they knew I knew it but the conversation never came up so
WR> it wasn't a big deal.

Some Of My Best Friends, eh? They let you keep pretending they
were straight, even though you knew they weren't, so you wouldn't be
forced to have them locked up in a federal prison. Why...that really Was
mighty nice of them homos. I take it you weren't big into enforcing the
UCMJ in those days...

WR> It wouldn't even be an issue if a very small number of folks didn't
WR> think they should be able to brag to everyone what they had done the
WR> night before.

So...how many weddings of military personnel have you attended?

[o...@brokersys.com]

In article <5e85eq$k...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, terry...@mail.utexas.edu
(Terry Moore) wrote:

Short And Sweet,

If you asked every hetersexual in the world if they had ever had "kinky
sex", and lets say about 10% actually had, my guess is that only about 2%
would admit it.

And about all the people you are so sure of that are hetersexualŠ the
world is full of gay men with a wife and children.

And about black people being 12% of the populationŠ I wonder how many of
them are homosexual?

BUT MY, you sure know a lot about homosexuals!!!

God created Adam and Eve and Steve.

--
Have You Read The Book?

[John Simpson]

On 16 Feb 1997 06:43:26 GMT, wrol...@nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS) said unto
us:

>The general thrust of this whole thread is pretty f---ed up because it
>does not address the real issue of whether we want our military to be able
>to f--- or fight.

Seems to me that our military already does both quite handily,
both our heterosexual and homosexual service men and women. What
evidence can you present demonstrating incompetence in either field,
and how is either activity related to the other?
To whom is this actually a "real" issue?

>I'd rather have them ready to fight and depriving young

>men of sex makes them want to kick some a-- no matter what their

>orientation is and thats just the mindset I want our fighting forces to
>have.

If you have thought about the matter, I believe you've already
realized what will happen if you try to deprive young men and women of
sex. It can't be done--the best you can hope for is a fairly rigorous
segregation of the sexes, and I don't suppose you'd approve of the
inevitable result of THAT program.
Wanting to "kick some a--" is only part of real fighting spirit,
and can be a liability in today's peacekeeping missions. The mindset
I believe you would really want (even in actual combat) includes some
more rarefied ideals, such as unit cohesion, professionalism, and
(contradictory as it sounds) respect for human life. Without these,
your soldiers are nothing more than a street gang in rather dull
colors.

Peace,

John Simpson
fe...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~feste
----------------------------------------------------
"A crowded elevator smells different to a dwarf."

[big...@mailmasher.com]

On 16 Feb 1997 21:57:30 GMT, bgar...@pobox.com (Bruce Garrett) wrote:

> wrollins@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS)
>telling folks...
>
>
>WR> In the military you can be prosecuted for telling folks how great your
>WR> spouse is at giving head.
>
> Yah. And how many are thrown in jail for it? Just for that.
>How many are discharged for saying that. Just once. Just that. Precisely
>none, that's how many. You're not fooling anyone here, jackass.

In Atlanta five years ago a man went to jail for 18 months for
commiting sodomy with his wife. In most states "unnatural" sexual acts
are still criminal acts. The post is federal property exempting them
from local laws; but the post commanders have traditionally the local
laws to the post. The UCMJ still exists. Just because a few people
lookthe other way doesn't make what is done any more legal.

I have never gotten a ticket for doing 66 in a 65 but that doesn't
make it legal.

[Shawn Hicks]

ang...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Minorities are generally persons who meet certain social criteria based on
> conditions over which they have no control. An African American can't change
> his skin color, a native american can't change where he or his ancestors were
> born, a person born with uncorrectable blindness is not responsible for his
> condition, A woman (in cases where she is classed as a minority) can't change
> her sex. These are people who are true minorities.

I cannot change my sexual orientation. No one has been successfull
in changing sexual orientation. Not one single ex-gay ministry or
quack doctor has succeeded in turning a homosexual into a heterosexual.
Any verifiable evidence with references in any generally accepted
professional journal to the contrary would be gladly accepted.

> Homosexuals, on the other hand, chose an alternative life style based on
> sexual preference.

I chose to ignore social taboo and have relationships with those I
am naturally attracted to and am able to form emotional and sexual
bonds with. To portray my choice as one between homo and hetero
sexuality is dishonest--I never had that choice. I have the choice
to be celibate, to join a loveless heterosexual relationship, or to
live as a homosexual. I chose the latter.

> A choice which puts their behavior outside the norm of an
> estimated 95% of the of the world's population. This choice of an alternative
> life style does not meet the social criteria as do the non-self imposed
> conditions of true minorities.

One might argue (if they were silly) that a person with brown skin
*chooses* to live in the minority subcultures in our society and as
such isn't a "true" minority in that sense. The mere fact that they
have brown skin doesn't prevent them from joining the mainstream
culture and behaving like middle class light skined people. Choosing
to live in these subcultures places brown-skinned people outside
of the norm.

> Consequently, one should think that
> homosexuals do not meet the criteria of being a minority because their
> condition is self-imposed. Regardless of this fact, they now want the people,
> by law, to classify them as a true minority

My "condition" is no more self imposed as that of any racial or
cultural minority in this country.

> I think most would agree that every citizen has rights to live as they wish,
> within the boundaries of laws to which all citizens are subject. Homosexuals
> appear to want more than this though. They want to go beyond the rights and
> privileges that the people have decided are appropriate for their self
> government, and demand that they be given special rights and privileges based
> on their alternative life style and its consequential "self imposed" minority
> status.

If I have the right to live as I wish, and I have the equal status that
our Constitution provides me, why can I not get married to the person
I love? Why can I be denied jobs or fired for my "lifestyle" when that
"lifestyle" doesn't interfere with work? Why do people hunt me and mine
out for special treatment like humiliation, bashing, and murder?

> Most people seem to believe that an "artificial minority status" should not be
> an allowable option to living within the laws established by the will of the
> people.

It's a good thing the majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual
citizens in this country aren't asking for minority status, artificial
or not. What we'd like to have are laws that give us the ability to
fight unjust treatment and to have our own government, our
representative
government, treat us with a measure of fairness. I don't want to
be part of any quota system or to have to mark a box as homosexual to
get a school grant or such thing--I don't need that level of protection.
What I *do* need is the ability to form a legal relationship with my
lifepartner and the ability to sue for discrimination if I'm able to
prove it.

And everyone reading this group, including you, *knows* that's
all that's being asked for. But it's these two things, these two
simple measures of fairness, that have everyone claiming the sky
is falling. Why? Is it because, at the root of all this, is a
determination on your part that dirty 'ol fags shouldn't be treated
fairly? How reasonable would you look if you simply came out and
said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to work in certain
jobs, should be subject to firing or hiring screenings because of
their sexual orientation, should be required to live as legally
single their entire lives? You wouldn't look very reasonable at all,
would you? Instead, you gin up some silly melodrama about how
we *deserve* our fate because our difference isn't as abvious as
a skin tone or the shape of an eye and because you *feel* we really
choose this difference instead of inherit it.

You as a citizen would lose nothing if gay and lesbian citizens
could marry the adult of their choice and work wherever they were
competent. But you as a person seem to be losing sleep over the
idea. Why is that?

Shawn Hicks
LV, NV, USA

Air Force veteran.

[Bruce Garrett]

big...@mailmasher.com makes a few excuses for it...

BG> In Atlanta five years ago a man went to jail for 18 months for
BG> commiting sodomy with his wife.

I'd just love to see the news accounts of that, because in all
likelihood there was something else involved in it besides the sex they
were having. Usually prosecutors pile sodomy charges on top of other more
major offenses. Only in the case of homosexual conduct are people ever
seriously threatened with jail for having consensual sex alone.

BG> In most states "unnatural" sexual acts are still criminal acts.

So what? There may have been a time when heterosexuals might
have had to worry about those laws, but they are seen now, rightfully,
as unwarranted intrusions by the state into the intimate affairs of the
people. I'd like to see a list of heterosexuals who have been put in jail
for consensual sodomy with their wives and Nothing else. And in any case,
married heterosexuals have at least one "natural" sex act they can engage
in without fear of legal intervention in their private lives. Homosexuality
on the other hand, is defined as unnatural As Such. We are allowed no
legal intimacy with one another. How long would you quietly put up with
that, bud? What you're giving us here is a classic example of the
intellectual dishonesty of the anti-Gay opposition, by ignoring both the
double standard in enforcement of these laws, and their fundamental bias
against homosexuals.

BG> The post is federal property exempting them from local laws; but the
BG> post commanders have traditionally the local laws to the post.

How convenient.

BG> The UCMJ still exists.

Great. So does homophobia. And as we can clearly see, so does the
dime store duplicity of bigots.

BG> I have never gotten a ticket for doing 66 in a 65 but that doesn't
BG> make it legal.

So tell me how Natural it is for a human being to be traveling at
those speeds to start with. And while you're at it, tell us how would
you like it if you were given a ticket every time a cop spotted you on the
road, because people of your race, or religion sexual orientation or
political persuasion weren't deemed fit to drive, while abysmally reckless
drivers of the socially approved classes were given free reign to do as they
pleased on the highway? Racial segregation was legal in this country for
decades, and long before that, slavery. Because it was legal, was it
right?

[Bruce Garrett]

ang...@hotmail.com meets certain criteria...

>> Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
>> 10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?

A> Minorities are generally persons who meet certain social criteria based
A> on conditions over which they have no control.

I see. So Jews aren't really a minority in the United States,
since they can always convert to christianity...right?

A> Homosexuals, on the other hand, chose an alternative life style based on
A> sexual preference.

Claptrap. Most homosexuals will tell you they don't choose to be
homosexual, and our lives are little different from yours.

A> A choice which puts their behavior outside the norm of an estimated 95%
A> of the of the world's population.

Great. Jews are put at roughly 4 percent of the American
population. That puts them outside the norm of an estimated 96% of the
population of this country. Are you saying we can cheerfully do whatever
we damn well please with them because of it? Say...I'll bet they'd sure
like to hear you say that over in alt.politics.white-power.

A> I think most would agree that every citizen has rights to live as they
A> wish, within the boundaries of laws to which all citizens are subject.
A> Homosexuals appear to want more than this though. They want to go beyond
A> the rights and privileges that the people have decided are appropriate
A> for their self government, and demand that they be given special rights
A> and privileges based on their alternative life style and its
A> consequential "self imposed" minority status.

Rhetoric. The boundaries of law you refer to are grounded in the
presumption that everyone is, or ought to be coerced into being,
heterosexual. So all you're saying here is that homosexuals don't like that
arrangement. No shit Sherlock. You wouldn't like it any better if the laws
were crafted around a basic presumption of homosexuality, and judging from
the half baked way you argue for heterosexual supremacy, under the
circumstances you'd probably be more a hindrance then a help in the fight
for heterosexual rights.

[Ward Stewart]

big...@mailmasher.com wrote:

>On 16 Feb 1997 21:57:30 GMT, bgar...@pobox.com (Bruce Garrett) wrote:

>> wrollins@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS)
>>telling folks...
>>
>>
>>WR> In the military you can be prosecuted for telling folks how great your
>>WR> spouse is at giving head.
>>
>> Yah. And how many are thrown in jail for it? Just for that.
>>How many are discharged for saying that. Just once. Just that. Precisely
>>none, that's how many. You're not fooling anyone here, jackass.

>In Atlanta five years ago a man went to jail for 18 months for

>commiting sodomy with his wife. In most states "unnatural" sexual acts
>are still criminal acts. The post is federal property exempting them
>from local laws; but the post commanders have traditionally the local
>laws to the post. The UCMJ still exists. Just because a few people
>lookthe other way doesn't make what is done any more legal.

>I have never gotten a ticket for doing 66 in a 65 but that doesn't
>make it legal.

At last report they did it on a BUS in puyblic view. Or, in
your mind does that make no difference?

ward

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There is no better tool with which to pound plowshares
into swords than the bible.
J. A. Stanley
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[big...@mailmasher.com]

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:19:37 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
wrote:

This is not the case to which I refer. The one I was citing is one in
which a man had consentual (he said consentual his wife said not) sex
with his estranged wife. She later accused him of rape. He was charged
and tried and found innocent based on the assumption that when they
took thier wedding vows she had consented in perpetuity or until a
divorce. She had told the DA that they had had oral sex so they
charged him with sodomy and got a conviction based on that.

But honestly none of this really matters. Homosexuals have been hated
in every society since the dawn of man. It's not going to change any
time soon. As long as there is this hate of all things associated with
homosexuality there would be a detrimental impact on our ability to
defend our country if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly.

Most peaple couldn't care less if there was a homosexual in their unit
as long as they don't know it. But as soon it becomes common
knowledge there are problems. Imagine the distrust in a combat
situation. It is assumed that gays are pansies(wrongly or rightly, it
doesn't matter because the assumption is automatically there) and
would run or cry in the face of battle. The last statement is to the
extreme of the stereotype but still in the ballpark.

The following is from another post on the same topic;

You are all missing the point here.

The point is not to discriminate but to create cohesiveness. The
current abhorance in our society of homosexual activity would make it
uncomfortable if not unsafe(for the homosexual and the heterosexual
alike) to have a homosexual serving alongside other male soldiers. I
think this applies especially to combat units.

Personally speaking I would be extremely uncomfortable if not
downright homophobic if I knew that someone I had to work with
regularly was homosexual. This discomfort would undoubtedly affect my
work detrimentally. There are others who would react violently to the
presence of homosexuals. If this is not detrimental to the Armed
Forces I don't know what is.

I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that
area MUST be avoided. This includes women in desegragated combat units
as well. That same conditioning in our upbringing that causes us to
abhor a homosexual would cause us to risk our lives unnecessarily with
a female present.

Consider this: Take a well disciplined squad or team and throw in a
female and now you have 12 men competing against each other.
Take that same squad and throw in a homosexual and now you have a pack
and an outsider.
In each scenario discipline and teamwork go out the window.

Without major social acceptance you should never have homosexuals
OPENLY serving.

[Johnson]

Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote in article
<snip>

> Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
> 10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
>

Because they are not a "minority". They are people who have made a choice.

[strumpet grrrl]

In article <01bc1cb2$c97cffa0$84ec93cf@prissy>,

people also choose their religious beliefs. does that mean that it is
right to discriminate against religious minorities?

it doesn't matter how many gay people there are. it also doesn't matter
whether or not it is a choice. regardless of numbers or choice, queer
people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. period.

rachel
--
-------------------------- rwes...@sophia.smith.edu -------------------------
"And should I then presume? And how should I begin?" -- T.S. Eliot
----------------------- http://www.smith.edu/~rwestmor -----------------------

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <5e85eq$k...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,

terry...@mail.utexas.edu (Terry Moore) writes:
> In article <fkt7e5...@dolphin.neosoft.com>, con...@neosoft.com
> (Conrad Sabatier) says:
>>

>>Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
>>10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
>

> Where - oh where - did you run across that word "discrimination"
> in my essay?

The *word* doesn't have to be there for the *concept* to be, dolt.
Your reason for postulating this grand theory of yours was to support the
continued inequality of gay people under the law, was it not?

Dishonesty, as usual, from the "No Special Rights" camp, as well as the
typical convenient sidestep. I take it you have no intention of
responding to my question?

Why don't you just fuck off then?

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <3312aba8...@nntp.netcruiser>,
ang...@hotmail.com writes:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:19:11 -0600, con...@neosoft.com (Conrad Sabatier)
> scribed:

>
>>Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
>>10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
>

> Minorities are generally persons who meet certain social criteria based on
> conditions over which they have no control. An African American can't change
> his skin color, a native american can't change where he or his ancestors were
> born, a person born with uncorrectable blindness is not responsible for his
> condition, A woman (in cases where she is classed as a minority) can't change
> her sex. These are people who are true minorities.
>

> Homosexuals, on the other hand, chose an alternative life style based on

> sexual preference.

No, but we do choose to dismiss you as a disingenuous asshole.

Thanks for playing. Bye.

[Ward Stewart]

des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote:

>In article <3312aba8...@nntp.netcruiser>, ang...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> Minorities are generally persons who meet certain social criteria based on
>> conditions over which they have no control.

>So tell me...

>Do you have no control over your religion? You were born with it,
>and it's in your gene structure?

>--
>John

Aloha john --

You missed the "generally" popped into he above nonsensical
assertion. It renders the assertion meaningless and
unforthy of response.

[Ward Stewart]

big...@mailmasher.com wrote:

>But honestly none of this really matters. Homosexuals have been hated
>in every society since the dawn of man.

This, BTW is simply not so.

>It's not going to change any
>time soon.

On the contrary it is changing, rapidly, and THAT is the
cause of all the panic and excitement over what, finally, is
a non issue. This hatred and exclusion has been challenged
here in the Hawaiian courts -- the state was asked WHY they
would not issue a marriage license to same-gender couples
and they simply could not, cannot come up with a reason.

This is because ther IS no reason -- if George and I are
permitted to protect each other by marrying after a 40 year
"engagement," how will anyone on earth be the poorer -- how
will our marriage negatively affect ANYONE'S het marriage?
It is not as if there were only a limited number of licenses
to be had and we were using them all up!

>As long as there is this hate of all things associated with
>homosexuality there would be a detrimental impact on our ability to
>defend our country if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly.

In other words, we must be discriminated against because we
are hated? Surely that cannot be your drift!

>Most peaple couldn't care less if there was a homosexual in their unit
>as long as they don't know it. But as soon it becomes common
>knowledge there are problems. Imagine the distrust in a combat
>situation. It is assumed that gays are pansies(wrongly or rightly, it
>doesn't matter because the assumption is automatically there) and
>would run or cry in the face of battle. The last statement is to the
>extreme of the stereotype but still in the ballpark.

>The following is from another post on the same topic;

>You are all missing the point here.

>The point is not to discriminate but to create cohesiveness. The
>current abhorance in our society of homosexual activity would make it
>uncomfortable if not unsafe(for the homosexual and the heterosexual
>alike) to have a homosexual serving alongside other male soldiers. I
>think this applies especially to combat units.

>Personally speaking I would be extremely uncomfortable if not
>downright homophobic if I knew that someone I had to work with
>regularly was homosexual. This discomfort would undoubtedly affect my
>work detrimentally. There are others who would react violently to the
>presence of homosexuals. If this is not detrimental to the Armed
>Forces I don't know what is.

WHO is the guilty party in the scenario you draw?

>I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
>but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
>defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that

The military is there to defend the very same human rights,
the very same freedoms that you would, in the name of this
struggle, deny.

>area MUST be avoided. This includes women in desegragated combat units
>as well. That same conditioning in our upbringing that causes us to
>abhor a homosexual would cause us to risk our lives unnecessarily with
>a female present.

>Consider this: Take a well disciplined squad or team and throw in a
>female and now you have 12 men competing against each other.
>Take that same squad and throw in a homosexual and now you have a pack
>and an outsider.
>In each scenario discipline and teamwork go out the window.

>Without major social acceptance you should never have homosexuals
>OPENLY serving.

If you will go back over this lengthy justification and
substitute the word negro for homosexual you will have
PRECISELY, letter for letter, word for word, the argument
that was advanced by Strom "segregation forever" Thurmond
against the integration of the Armed Forces late in the
1940s -- The only thing you did not say was that the troops
"would NEVER" take orders from negroes."

This was raw bigotry then and it is still the same -- There
is always plenty of justification for hatefulness -- indeed
justifying hatefulness has been a major human preoccupation
ever since the first neanderthal picked up a stick.

It is to be hoped that as we enter the third millennium we
will be able to drop, put behind us, some of the horrors of
the first.

[Shawn Hicks]

Johnson wrote:
>
> Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote in article
> <snip>

> > Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
> > 10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
> >
>

> Because they are not a "minority". They are people who have made a choice.

How old were you when you made the choice to be straight?

--
========================================================
Shawn Hicks bali...@wizard.com
Las Vegas, NV, USA http://www.wizard.com/~balistik/

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode <01bc1cb2$c97cffa0$84ec93cf@prissy>,
the lovely and talented "Johnson" <miny...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.veterans,hawaii.military:

|Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote in article
|<snip>
|> Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
|> 10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
|>
|
|Because they are not a "minority". They are people who have made a choice.

The same argument would apply to religion.

--
Lars Eighner= http://www.io.com/~eighner == http://www.crl.com/~eighner =
12550 Vista View #302 eig...@crl.com eig...@io.com ==
San Antonio TX 78231 alt.books.lars-eighner "At better ISPs everywhere"=
(210)979-7124 ========"Yes, Lizbeth is fine."============================

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <01bc1cb2$c97cffa0$84ec93cf@prissy>,

"Johnson" <miny...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote in article
> <snip>
>> Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
>> 10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
>>
>
> Because they are not a "minority". They are people who have made a choice.

So why is it that you believe gay people "choose" their sexuality, but
straight people don't?

Did *you* "choose" your sexuality? If so, we'd just *love* to hear all
about it.

If not, go fuck yourself.

[Terry Moore]

In article <5ea0hh$k...@krypto.zippo.com>, bgar...@pobox.com

(Bruce Garrett) says:
>
>BG> In Atlanta five years ago a man went to jail for 18 months for
>BG> commiting sodomy with his wife.
>
> I'd just love to see the news accounts of that, because in all
>likelihood there was something else involved in it besides the sex they
>were having.

******************************************************************

It was in the news 3 or 4 years ago. I clipped it out and posted it
on the shop bulletin board.

The divorce was going badly - the guy was not being a gentleman
about it at all. However, he had not broken the law so they
couldn't find a way to protect the woman. During the court proceedings,
the man testified that he had performed oral sex on his wife. In
summations, neither the prosecution nor the defense mentioned the
oral sex thing. However, when the judge instructed the jury, he
stunned both the prosecution and the defense by telling the jury
that they could find the man guilty of sodomy. They did just that
and he went to the big house. The news article was written in a
semi-humorous vein - - like, "What are you in for man?" "Well,
sir, I'm doing time for eating *****!!!!!

Terry at Lake Bastrop

*******************************************************************

[Terry Moore]

In article <dgr9e5...@dolphin.neosoft.com>, con...@neosoft.com

(Conrad Sabatier) says:
>
>In article <5e85eq$k...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> terry...@mail.utexas.edu (Terry Moore) writes:
>> In article <fkt7e5...@dolphin.neosoft.com>, con...@neosoft.com
>> (Conrad Sabatier) says:
>>>

>>>Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
>>>10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
>>

Terry says:
>> Where - oh where - did you run across that word "discrimination"
>> in my essay?
>
>The *word* doesn't have to be there for the *concept* to be, dolt.
>Your reason for postulating this grand theory of yours was to support
>the continued inequality of gay people under the law, was it not?

***************************************************************

No.

*****************************************************************

>
>Dishonesty, as usual, from the "No Special Rights" camp, as well as the
>typical convenient sidestep. I take it you have no intention of
>responding to my question?
>

*****************************************************************

I see no reason to answer a question that has nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

Your word "dishonesty" is relevant though. You call it "dishonesty",
I call it "credibility".

The source of the 10% myth was the Kinsey report which found that
10% of the convicts in prisons engaged in homosexual conduct.
Homosexual leaders then tried to pass that Kinsey figure off as
being representative of the US population as a whole.

Now, if the Homosexual leaders who postulated that 10% figure actually
believed what they were saying, then the 10% figure is a myth. If
they knew that those figures were false, then the 10% figure was
a hoax. A hoax is "dishonest" and impacts the credibility of the
homosexual leaders on the subject of homosexual population and
that damaged credibility carries over to other claims from the
homosexual leadership.

Why did the homosexual leadership attempt to fool the US populace
into believing that the 10% figure was correct? Are they
ashamed of the 2% figure for some reason?

I still do not see what this has to do with discrimination.

****************************************************************

>Why don't you just fuck off then?

>--
>Conrad Sabatier http://www.neosoft.com/~conrads
>
>

*****************************************************************

Your vocabulary impresses me immensely.

Terry at Lake Bastrop, Texas
*****************************************************************
>

[big...@mailmasher.com]

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:09:02 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
wrote:

>big...@mailmasher.com wrote:

>
>
>>But honestly none of this really matters. Homosexuals have been hated
>>in every society since the dawn of man.
>
>This, BTW is simply not so.
>
>>It's not going to change any
>>time soon.
>
>On the contrary it is changing, rapidly, and THAT is the
>cause of all the panic and excitement over what, finally, is
>a non issue. This hatred and exclusion has been challenged
>here in the Hawaiian courts -- the state was asked WHY they
>would not issue a marriage license to same-gender couples
>and they simply could not, cannot come up with a reason.
>
>This is because ther IS no reason -- if George and I are
>permitted to protect each other by marrying after a 40 year
>"engagement," how will anyone on earth be the poorer -- how
>will our marriage negatively affect ANYONE'S het marriage?
>It is not as if there were only a limited number of licenses
>to be had and we were using them all up!

Ther doesn't need to be a reason, simply that the majority find it
abhorant.

>>As long as there is this hate of all things associated with
>>homosexuality there would be a detrimental impact on our ability to
>>defend our country if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly.
>
>In other words, we must be discriminated against because we
>are hated? Surely that cannot be your drift!

Actually it is. At least in the case of the Armed Services. There is
nothing that bite deeper into the psyche than selfdoubts about
sexuality.l

>>Most peaple couldn't care less if there was a homosexual in their unit
>>as long as they don't know it. But as soon it becomes common
>>knowledge there are problems. Imagine the distrust in a combat
>>situation. It is assumed that gays are pansies(wrongly or rightly, it
>>doesn't matter because the assumption is automatically there) and
>>would run or cry in the face of battle. The last statement is to the
>>extreme of the stereotype but still in the ballpark.
>
>>The following is from another post on the same topic;
>
>>You are all missing the point here.
>
>>The point is not to discriminate but to create cohesiveness. The
>>current abhorance in our society of homosexual activity would make it
>>uncomfortable if not unsafe(for the homosexual and the heterosexual
>>alike) to have a homosexual serving alongside other male soldiers. I
>>think this applies especially to combat units.
>
>>Personally speaking I would be extremely uncomfortable if not
>>downright homophobic if I knew that someone I had to work with
>>regularly was homosexual. This discomfort would undoubtedly affect my
>>work detrimentally. There are others who would react violently to the
>>presence of homosexuals. If this is not detrimental to the Armed
>>Forces I don't know what is.
>
>WHO is the guilty party in the scenario you draw?

So what if we are the guilty party. The situation is the way it is to
provide the best solution for the country.

>>I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
>>but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
>>defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that
>
>The military is there to defend the very same human rights,
>the very same freedoms that you would, in the name of this
>struggle, deny.

Once again you have no Constitutional rights regarding homosexuality.
Not until the Supreme court says so.

>>area MUST be avoided. This includes women in desegragated combat units
>>as well. That same conditioning in our upbringing that causes us to
>>abhor a homosexual would cause us to risk our lives unnecessarily with
>>a female present.
>
>>Consider this: Take a well disciplined squad or team and throw in a
>>female and now you have 12 men competing against each other.
>>Take that same squad and throw in a homosexual and now you have a pack
>>and an outsider.
>>In each scenario discipline and teamwork go out the window.
>
>>Without major social acceptance you should never have homosexuals
>>OPENLY serving.
>
>If you will go back over this lengthy justification and
>substitute the word negro for homosexual you will have
>PRECISELY, letter for letter, word for word, the argument
>that was advanced by Strom "segregation forever" Thurmond
>against the integration of the Armed Forces late in the
>1940s -- The only thing you did not say was that the troops
>"would NEVER" take orders from negroes."

That not true at all. The prejudice against negroes in the States is
historically relatively new. Throughout history the negroes of the
world have had about equal discrimination as compared to all other
peoples of the world. I have lived in more than a dozen countries ove
the last 15 years and find very little discrimination against blacks
like ther is here. In Rome the Christians were the hated ones not the
blacks. And there are many more places throughout history with the
same comparison. The discrimination against negroes in the armed
forces was pretty much confined to the US.

I still hold to the FACT that there has never been a LARGE society
where homosexuality was accepted as normal by the majority.

You don't have the RIGHT to practice homosexuality. In the state in
which I live the acts involved in your lifestyle are ILLEGAL. There
doesn't have to be a reason for it, the majority wants it that way.
There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you any of the
benefits of heterosexual marriages, or even the RIGHT to practice the
lifestyle. At least not until the US Supreme Court says there is.
Something which I think won't happen soon. They have been actively
avoiding the issue for the last 10 years.

[Eric Bohlman]

Terry Moore (terry...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:

: The source of the 10% myth was the Kinsey report which found that

: 10% of the convicts in prisons engaged in homosexual conduct.
: Homosexual leaders then tried to pass that Kinsey figure off as
: being representative of the US population as a whole.

False, completely false. Although some of Kinsey's earlier studies used
prisoners, his landmark study of male sexual behavior didn't. Kinsey
found that 47% (yes, nearly half) of the males in his sample had engaged
in sexual behavior (which, BTW does not mean "anal intercourse"; the most
common form was mutual masturbation) to the point of orgasm with another
male. He found that 10% of the males in his sample had a period of at
least 3 years in their adult lives when their sexual attractions and
behavior were exclusively or predominantly homosexual (you can't count
all of these as gay; for example, a bisexual man in a relationship with
another man for 3 years would be counted in that 10%). Finally, he found
that 4% of the males in his sample reported that their sexual attractions
and behavior were exclusively or predominantly homosexual for their
entire adult lives.

Kinsey's samples *were* rather biased toward urban and well-educated men,
and there's reason to believe that this caused his estimates to come out
on the high side. The 4% figure for exclusive homosexuality is probably
a little imprecise, since it would be influenced by the age distribution
of the sample; the older one is, the less likely it is that one has done
the same thing all his life.

Most of the other studies frequently quoted can't be compared to Kinsey's
10% figure because they don't use the same criterion as he did. They
typically ask whether or not a person identifies himself as homosexual at
the present time, which is going to include more than Kinsey's 4%, but
less than his 10%. Some of the studies that came up with very low
figures (the Batelle study in particular) didn't even ask people how they
labelled themselves; rather they asked whether people had engaged in
particular sex acts (which do *not* represent all the ways two men
can achieve orgasm together) recently. But this is not the same thing as
orientation; if a male teenager is a virgin but gets to third with his
girlfriend every Saturday night, we still consider him heterosexual (the
researchers who conducted the Batelle study have stated that it was never
intended to measure the percentage of gay men in the population and that
its results cannot be interpreted as such).

Some of the subsequent studies had methodological problems, such as lack
of anonymity for the respondents; these would be likely to cause the
results to come out low. But the main reason for all the discordant
numbers is that no two studies have used the same operational definition
of what it means to be gay.

[John Simpson]

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:09:32 GMT, big...@mailmasher.com said unto us:

>Personally speaking I would be extremely uncomfortable if not
>downright homophobic if I knew that someone I had to work with
>regularly was homosexual. This discomfort would undoubtedly affect my
>work detrimentally. There are others who would react violently to the
>presence of homosexuals. If this is not detrimental to the Armed
>Forces I don't know what is.

Firing homosexual people is NOT the obvious solution here. How
about dumping the folks whose performance is not up to par, who allow
their personal hatred to interfere with their duties?

>I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
>but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
>defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that

>area MUST be avoided.

This is why even the military is starting to preach against
sexual harrassment. Firing the victims is not an option.

>Consider this: Take a well disciplined squad or team and throw in a
>female and now you have 12 men competing against each other.
>Take that same squad and throw in a homosexual and now you have a pack
>and an outsider.
>In each scenario discipline and teamwork go out the window.

In each scenario, the so-called "discipline and teamwork" was too
fragile--how would we expect it to hold up under fire? Good leaders
find more to bind their soldiers together than bigotry.

>Without major social acceptance you should never have homosexuals
>OPENLY serving.

Until our government is willing to admit OPENLY that all
taxpayers are worthy of service, complete social acceptance is
impossible.

Peace,

John Simpson
fe...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~feste
----------------------------------------------------

"We are men of action. Lies do not become us."
--the Dread Pirate Roberts

[John Simpson]

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:03:00 GMT, eboh...@netcom.com (Eric Bohlman)
said unto us:

>Some of the subsequent studies had methodological problems, such as lack
>of anonymity for the respondents; these would be likely to cause the
>results to come out low. But the main reason for all the discordant
>numbers is that no two studies have used the same operational definition
>of what it means to be gay.

Yep. Until some way of measuring actual sexual arousal (NOT
tumesc-o-meters + photographs) is found, and until a subsequent
definition of homosexuality is nailed down, and until a representative
sample of the world's population is tested, the question we all want
answered will remain...a question.
Until then, we're still stuck with having to integrate a minority
into a majority which shows little understanding. How minor the
minority is strikes me as irrelevant.

[John Simpson]

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:25:50 GMT, ...@... said unto us:

>Tell us of the law or laws that use the words: "Excepting Homosexuals"

Better yet, tell us who the DOMA was enacted against. Tell us
what the debate centered on. Sprinkle it liberally with quotations
from Jesse Helms, if you like.
But DON'T be disingenuous. It just wastes time.

[strumpet grrrl]

In article <331e4782...@nntp.netcruiser>, <...@...> wrote:
>On 17 Feb 97 19:44:42 GMT, rwes...@sophia.smith.edu (strumpet grrrl) scribed:

>Tell us of the law or laws that use the words: "Excepting Homosexuals"

well, let's see... there was margarethe cammermeyer (i hope i spelled
that right) who was thrown out of the army for being a lesbian. oh, and
kenny hardwick, who went to jail in georgia for being caught in bed with
his male lover. can you, anonymous, name me any cases of heterosexual
couples being arrested for having sexual intercourse in the privacy of
their own homes? oh, and, of course, same-sex couples can't get
married. most of the time, to my knowledge, it is not the letter of the
law that discriminates; it is the spirit. now when are you going to tell
us your name?

[big...@mailmasher.com]

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:19:52 GMT, festeatmindspringdotcom (John
Simpson) wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:09:32 GMT, big...@mailmasher.com said unto us:
>
>>Personally speaking I would be extremely uncomfortable if not
>>downright homophobic if I knew that someone I had to work with
>>regularly was homosexual. This discomfort would undoubtedly affect my
>>work detrimentally. There are others who would react violently to the
>>presence of homosexuals. If this is not detrimental to the Armed
>>Forces I don't know what is.
>
> Firing homosexual people is NOT the obvious solution here. How
>about dumping the folks whose performance is not up to par, who allow
>their personal hatred to interfere with their duties?
>

Homosexuals aren't being fired for doing homosexual things or for
being homosexual, they are being fired for letting people know about
it. You can go out and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't
become public knowledge.

When the reaction of almost every heterosexual male in our society is
akin to that of the reaction of a person to a snake or spider then
it's not hatred or prejudice it's almost instinctual. It is almost a
norm.

>>I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
>>but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
>>defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that
>>area MUST be avoided.
>
> This is why even the military is starting to preach against
>sexual harrassment. Firing the victims is not an option.

This has nothing to do with sexual harrassment. The typical male
reaction is the hackle raising hair standing on end reaction you get
when you walk up on something extremely distastelul

>
>>Consider this: Take a well disciplined squad or team and throw in a
>>female and now you have 12 men competing against each other.
>>Take that same squad and throw in a homosexual and now you have a pack
>>and an outsider.
>>In each scenario discipline and teamwork go out the window.
>
> In each scenario, the so-called "discipline and teamwork" was too
>fragile--how would we expect it to hold up under fire? Good leaders

>find more to bind their soldiers together than bigotry.
>
This has nothing to do with bigotry. Would you expect 99% of the male
population to undergo emotional reeducation(dare I say brainwashing)
just to make you more comfortable.

Prejudice is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is a survival trait
passed down through millions of years that is not going to just go
away no matter the training.

Prejudice is the instinctive distrust and distaste of the outsider.
This is how many isolated tribes today still react to interlopers;
even to the point of violence.

Most prejudice can be overcome. For example the prejudice against
blacks in the US has been largely overcome in the last 20 years. But
they are fundamentally the same as whites. They have no fundamental
behavioral differences that are found instinctively abhorrant.
Homosexuals look the same but don't act the same. Maybe that's the
problem, like something out of invasion of the bodysnatchers.

>
>>Without major social acceptance you should never have homosexuals
>>OPENLY serving.
>
> Until our government is willing to admit OPENLY that all
>taxpayers are worthy of service, complete social acceptance is
>impossible.

You misunderstand me. I never said that homosexuals weren't worthy of
service, only that it would be detrimental if they were to openly
declare they were homosexuals. I have little doubt that I have worked
with homosexuals in the past. I just haven't known it. If I had, my
feelings toward them would have been totally different. About 10 years
ago an E-7 in my unit got "caught in the act" so to speak, this guy
had to be isolated from all for his own protection. His own friends
wouldn't speak with him after that.

If you want to work any where you want, you have a right to apply but
you have no right to be hired. Nobody does.

I believe that OPEN homosexuality is incompatible with the Armed
Forces. Just as I believe that smoking marijuana is incompatible with
the Armed Forces. There are many who would quit a regular job if told
they had to work with homosexuals. In the Armed Forces this not an
option. No one should be forced to work with someone that they have a
deep religious and moral conviction against(not to mention the
instinctual gut reaction of many against).

I will continue to believe such until such time that the Supreme Court
says it's unconstitutional. At that time my statements will reflect
what the UCMJ says they have to reflect but not my feelings.(I guess
I'm too old to learn new tricks)

[John De Salvio]

In article <331a302e...@nntp.netcruiser>, ang...@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> Why do you bring up religion? Is it in your genes that you use it as a crutch
> even when it's not part of the discussion?
>
> Angle

I brought up religion because people belonging to religions
constitute protected minorities.

It is DEFINITELY part of the discussion when people like you
constantly claim that homosexuals cannot be a protected
minority because of what they "choose" to be or do.

Religion is a CHOICE.

--
John

NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:

desa...@monitor.net

[John De Salvio]

In article <331d3d6e...@nntp.netcruiser>, Ang...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Surveys consistently show homosexuals have a higher average income than the
> norm, so you have jobs.

Show me the source of your "surveys" and I'll show you how
you, too, have been suckered.

The bulk of the "surveys" you refer to are based on the income
levels of people who subscribe to magazines geared for upscale
gay consumers. The survey was conducted to persuade media
buyers to place advertising in upscale gay magazines.

We could do the same by doing a survey of subscribers to
Fortune magazine. That would make most heterosexuals millionaires.

Come back when you do some REAL research.

[Daniel England/Shaun Byrne]

It has to do with discrimination because you seem to have taken the point
of view that people, due to their sexual interests/actions, should be
denied certain benefits available to other people.

I reiterate the point...even if only one person (obviously an extreme) was
gay, they should both legally and technically be entitled to the full
rights accustomed to any other person.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Necromas [Daniel]
s33...@student.uq.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Terry Moore <terry...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in article
<5earsb$5...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...

> The source of the 10% myth was the Kinsey report which found that
> 10% of the convicts in prisons engaged in homosexual conduct.
> Homosexual leaders then tried to pass that Kinsey figure off as
> being representative of the US population as a whole.
>

[Daniel England/Shaun Byrne]

Actually, I think the whole matter has only to do with morality.

Teach children that sexuality is okay and normal (not a thing that should
be hidden, teach them a maturity about it as well, of course) and their
would be no problem.

In 10 years when homosexuality is accepted, no male will have a problem
with being approached sexually be another man because there will be no need
for him to feel dirty or guilty or somehow made effeminate etc.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Necromas [Daniel]
s33...@student.uq.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Bruce Garrett <bgar...@pobox.com> wrote in article
<5e7vus$g...@krypto.zippo.com>...
> terry...@mail.utexas.edu (Terry Moore) untold copies plus one...
>
>
> TM> I wrote this in 1993 and mailed untold copies to Congress
> TM> and activist groups.
>
> Great. Compulsive/Obsessive, but that's our opposition.
> Here's a few responses from something I wrote around the same time...and
> distributed, to a few relevant parties and the internet...
>
> TM> 1. Privacy.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The argument seems to be that because we regularly segregate girls and
boys
> we ought to be allowed to segregate heterosexuals and homosexuals in
> situations that are comparable. The situations are not directly
comparable
> but never mind, the reason why we segregate the sexes on a regular basis,
> Male and Female restrooms and single sex barracks and such like is to
> insure sexual privacy and keep unwelcome sexual attentions out of areas
> that are unavoidable private in nature. Therefore heterosexuals have a
> legitimate right to expect that society, under similar conditions, will
> keep homosexuals away from them too. But our segregation of the sexes
> begins in our culture well before puberty, before boys and girls even
begin
> to notice each other sexually, so we cannot say either that it is a
policy
> that relates exclusively to the problem of managing sexual desire and
> minimizing unwanted sexual attention, or that sexual segregation is the
> Necessary solution to that problem, since the solution begins, before the
> problem even becomes an issue.
>
> First graders could hardly be interested in one another sexually, yet no
> one suggests the genders are free to use the same bathrooms in grade
> school. But people of a given sex share common faculties throughout
> childhood and into adulthood; and among them have always existed
> homosexuals. That being the case, homosexuals have historically and in
all
> cultures matured in environments where the attractive sex was always
around
> them. Homosexuals have always had to learn to manage the sexual tensions
> surrounding public faculties and common barracks not only in the armed
> services but in all walks of life all throughout their lives. Whether or
> not Straight boys ever used the same restroom as Straight girls the
> historical fact is that we have Always been there using the same
porcelain
> along with both of them.
>
> This is why the situations between Gay and Straight are not directly
> comparable to Boy and Girl in this regard. Heterosexuals have never been
> kept segregated from homosexuals in the way they are segregated from each
> other; they cannot claim anything is actually changing for them in this
> regard. What they =Can= claim is that they have always had an
expectation
> they will not be bothered by sexual attentions in those kinds of common
> areas; and that Is something they can legitimately insist not change.
But
> they cannot insist that co-use of these faculties is an issue for them in
> and of itself because we have always used them together and they have
> always known it.
>
> It is arguable that heterosexuals have more difficulty with the matter,
not
> because it is innate in human sexuality and unresolvable in lieu of
> segregation, but because they have not been allowed to develop mechanisms
> to deal with it in the same way as their homosexual peers. Perhaps the
> relentless segregation of the sexes works against them in this regard,
but
> it is not clear at all that the cultural mechanism at work in our
> segregation of the sexes springs exclusively from the need to maintain a
> social atmosphere free of sexual harassment. For heterosexuals it may
also
> be because our culture grew from one that segregated men and women all
> throughout society, not just at the john.
>
> But to focus exclusively on harassment in the barracks and bathrooms, as
> the opposition would have us do, is to miss a larger problem with the
> argument; that problem is that the line between Intimate quarters and
> public workplaces is nowhere near as sharply defined and smoothly
> manageable with a policy of strict segregation as the opposition would
have
> us believe. There are sleeping quarters to be sure, and bathrooms and
> showers yes. But what of gymnasiums and other recreational and physical
> training faculties? What of lonely warehouse rooms, where no one else can
> see what one person may do to another? What of field exercises where
> people can become isolated? What of offices where commanders speak alone
> with subordinates?
>
> Sexual tension, loss of privacy, harassment and outright assault are
> possible in any of these situations [Note: Can you say "Aberdeen"?] and
> many more besides and the unavoidable conclusion is that privacy in a
> military setting is not a question of place but of circumstances. If the
> problem is that sexually attractive genders cannot be mixed in "close"
> situations for the sake of discipline and morale then you are not merely
> restricting them to separate quarters...but separate occupations
entirely.
> You cannot contain privacy to specific rigorously segregated locations no
> matter how hard you try; particularly in an occupation as wide in scope
as
> the military. If attractive genders cannot be alone together without it
> impacting on morale then they cannot work together in the same occupation
> either; there are too many opportunities for invasion of privacy and
sexual
> harassment to occur besides the barracks or the restrooms to even begin
to
> manage them all. This argument, if it is true, makes a case not just for
> keeping homosexuals out of the military, but either women or men as well.
>
> Trying to keep people apart by sexual orientation poses it's own
problems.
> You cannot have separate barracks and showers for Gay and Straight as you
> might for Boy and Girl because in the case of homosexual personnel the
> problem of privacy and unwelcome sexual attention will not be solved by
> keeping them strictly among their own kind (and it is telling about the
> attitudes of some people proposing this that they do not seem to consider
> the privacy rights of homosexuals to be an issue). It would seem that
the
> only solution is to keep the services strictly a single heterosexual
> gender.
>
> But this still does not end the problems. Segregating genders is one
> thing, segregating orientations another. Gender is not a matter of
degree;
> you are either a boy or a girl. But sexual orientation is a spectrum of
> desire that segues from one point to another like colors from a prism.
If
> you accept the Kinsey scale, which ranges from 0 (exclusively
heterosexual)
> to 6 (exclusively homosexual) you are left with a difficulty. Even
people
> who are predominantly heterosexual, unless they are Kinsey 0s, can have
> occasional homosexual desires (just as homosexuals who are not Kinsey 6s
> can have occasional heterosexual desires). The closer you get to that
> Kinsey 0, the rarer the occasion...but there it is nonetheless. That
being
> the case, segregating homosexuals is not enough and you end up slicing
out
> of the Fitness For Duty pie, a good number of people who are essentially
> heterosexual and who might never lay a hand on another solider throughout
> their career simply on the basis that they "might", because their
> heterosexuality is not perfect Enough.
>
> So. The only way to keep sexual pressure out of "close quarters" in the
> military (and if you like, to be consistent about it as well...) by way
of
> managing it through gender and orientation segregation is ultimately to
> limit manpower exclusively to a single gender and to require that gender
> also be comprised exclusively of Kinsey 0s. And even this will not solve
> the problem, because some people do not reach a point where they know
their
> sexual orientation until their twenties...and some even later still.
>
> Such a policy cannot help but be a gross waste of resources and a
> squandering of public good will that even a superpower such as ours
cannot
> afford in the long run. It is akin to solving the problem of how to keep
> your hands clean by cutting off your arms. Gross waste, social tension
and
> animosity toward the military and consistent internal policy failures are
> the Necessary outcomes of this kind of approach, because in fact it is
not
> managing the problem of sexual harassment at
all,_It_Is_Trying_To_Finesse_
> It._ It is taking the "Quick Fix" approach. The problem with finessing
any
> problem is not only that it does not solve the problem at hand...it often
> prevents actual solutions from being cultivated. I am put in mind of
> NASA's Challenger disaster; they knew there was a problem with the solid
> rocket joint design, and instead of addressing the design they tried to
> finesse their way around the problem by restricting the operation of the
> shuttle. The track record of that solution does not need mention.
>
> It's been well said that there is no real privacy in the military; I
don't
> think the people in the opposition quite realize how this truth cuts into
> the matter. What it means is that privacy in the military can only be
said
> to exist so long as the people who are working together maintain a degree
> of discipline. It is circumstantial and procedural, not actual; it
cannot
> be assured by way of physical constraints but Only by way of conduct.
> People who are sleeping together, showering together and working closely
> together are vulnerable to a wide range of personal intrusions and
assaults
> in many areas besides sex that can ignite people like a grass fire on a
dry
> and windy prairie afternoon. Religion, Race, Ethnicity, Class... all of
> these and more can be the spark that light everything up if there are not
> policies in place that Mandate mutual respect and discipline at all
times.
>
> Segregating members of the attractive sex might seem superficially like a
> good way to maintain sexual discipline, but another way of looking at it
is
> that it is not discipline maintenance so much as discipline avoidance.
You
> deal with the problem by removing the ingredients. But this solves the
> problem only so long as the ingredients remain absent and this cannot be
> guaranteed; therefore the problem is not actually being managed, just
left
> slumbering and ready to awaken at the first opportunity which management
is
> then left in the position of always trying to head off. If the goal to
be
> achieved is the maintainance of sexual discipline, and the privacy and
> morale issues related to having that discipline, then it is Only solved
by
> cultivating that discipline in the first place; by rewarding it's
presence
> with responsibility, and =consistently= punishing it's absence.
>
> The argument can be made that the military can both segregate and teach
> this kind of discipline. It can't. You cannot teach sexual discipline
in
> a protected, sheltered environment, structured such that sexual
discipline
> is a moot issue entirely. It is like trying to learn repelling in a
> gravity free zone, like striving to rise above alcoholism by going to
live
> on a desert island. It is like a mother carefully placing breakable
things
> up out of reach and checking all the cabinets at floor level for anything
> that might be poisonous (that kid gets into EVERYthing.. <sigh>); a
> management tool for a family with two year olds, unlikely at all to
produce
> any sort of discipline in adults who must be entrusted with
> responsibilities. You cannot be taught discipline, you cannot even know
> you posses it, if it is not cultivated within rather then bestowed by
> benevolent circumstances without... and tested... and tested again... and
> again... Until you are able to consistently take control of situations,
> rather then letting them control you. It is not unreasonable to demand
> this capacity from someone who aspires to become a solider.
>
> Sexual aggression, whether it is directed by Gays against Straights or by
> Straights against Gays - whether it takes the form of unwelcome sexual
> advances or sexual hostility, is at root an issue of discipline and
> respect. There are many such. Race, Gender, Religion, Ethnicity, Class;
in
> the military there are many ways to intrude, to harass and degrade
> cohesiveness, order and moral. We cannot manage any of them with the
tools
> of segregation. A military that was perfectly homogenous might be an
easier
> one to manage compatibly issues in, but even if such a thing could be
> accomplished that military would have so little in common with American
> Society at large that it would soon find Itself segregated from that
> society. That would benefit neither the military nor society.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> and just to touch up...
>
> TM> 2. Worldwide Deployment of US Military Personnel.
>
> Say...why not stop deploying our personnel in totalitarian
> theocracies in the first place?
>
> TM> 3. Homosexuals versus Blacks.
>
> TM> Blacks were serving in the US military services long before
> TM> President Truman's Executive Order in 1948. To wit:
>
> No shit. And so have homosexuals. Point of fact, homosexuals
have
> been serving in military organizations since recorded history.
>
> TM> A black named Isaiah Dorman died with Custer at Little Big Horn...
>
> Does the name Alexander the Great ring any bells, jackass?
>
> TM> I note that the ban on homosexuals was in effect throughout the
Korean
> TM> and Vietnam conflicts simultaneously with the draft. If it was so
easy
> TM> to avoid military service during those times, why did so many young
men
> TM> seek refuge in Canada rather than just saying, "I like the boys"????
>
> Because in those days homosexuals were being given lobotomies to
> cure them?
>
> TM> There is no valid reason to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in
the
> TM> US military.
>
> The Rand Corp study concluded otherwise. So have many others.
The
> only thing that keeps it in place now is ignorant prejudice (ibid, your
> pathetic "privacy" argument). Once we were mentally unstable. Then when
> that lie fell it was that we were security risks. Then when that lie
fell
> it was that we couldn't cut the mustard as fighters. Now all you have
> left against us is pee shyness. It's a measure of your shamelessness,
not
> ours, that you keep putting it forward as an excuse to destroy the
careers
> and lives of many good and decent people.
>
> It must be driving babbling kooks like you crazy to look back at
> all the ground you've lost to the objects of your hatred so quickly. Go
> ahead...take another look at it for me, Terry.

[Daniel England/Shaun Byrne]

Homosexuality _has not_ been hated in every society, mainly just the
western ones.

Oh...as well as a hatred of coloured people, a repression of its female
members....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Necromas [Daniel]
s33...@student.uq.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

big...@mailmasher.com wrote in article
<3308a9d...@news.pipeline.com>...
> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:19:37 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
> wrote:

>
> >big...@mailmasher.com wrote:
> >
> >>On 16 Feb 1997 21:57:30 GMT, bgar...@pobox.com (Bruce Garrett) wrote:
> >
> >>> wrollins@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS)
> >>>telling folks...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>WR> In the military you can be prosecuted for telling folks how great
your
> >>>WR> spouse is at giving head.
> >>>
> >>> Yah. And how many are thrown in jail for it? Just for that.
> >>>How many are discharged for saying that. Just once. Just that.
Precisely
> >>>none, that's how many. You're not fooling anyone here, jackass.
> >

> >>In Atlanta five years ago a man went to jail for 18 months for

> >>commiting sodomy with his wife. In most states "unnatural" sexual acts
> >>are still criminal acts. The post is federal property exempting them
> >>from local laws; but the post commanders have traditionally the local
> >>laws to the post. The UCMJ still exists. Just because a few people
> >>lookthe other way doesn't make what is done any more legal.
> >
> >>I have never gotten a ticket for doing 66 in a 65 but that doesn't
> >>make it legal.
> >
> >At last report they did it on a BUS in puyblic view. Or, in
> >your mind does that make no difference?
> >

> >ward
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >"There is no better tool with which to pound plowshares
> >into swords than the bible.
> > J. A. Stanley
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >

> This is not the case to which I refer. The one I was citing is one in
> which a man had consentual (he said consentual his wife said not) sex
> with his estranged wife. She later accused him of rape. He was charged
> and tried and found innocent based on the assumption that when they
> took thier wedding vows she had consented in perpetuity or until a
> divorce. She had told the DA that they had had oral sex so they
> charged him with sodomy and got a conviction based on that.
>

> But honestly none of this really matters. Homosexuals have been hated

> in every society since the dawn of man. It's not going to change any
> time soon. As long as there is this hate of all things associated with

> homosexuality there would be a detrimental impact on our ability to
> defend our country if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly.
>

> Most peaple couldn't care less if there was a homosexual in their unit
> as long as they don't know it. But as soon it becomes common
> knowledge there are problems. Imagine the distrust in a combat
> situation. It is assumed that gays are pansies(wrongly or rightly, it
> doesn't matter because the assumption is automatically there) and
> would run or cry in the face of battle. The last statement is to the
> extreme of the stereotype but still in the ballpark.
>
> The following is from another post on the same topic;
>
> You are all missing the point here.
>
> The point is not to discriminate but to create cohesiveness. The
> current abhorance in our society of homosexual activity would make it
> uncomfortable if not unsafe(for the homosexual and the heterosexual
> alike) to have a homosexual serving alongside other male soldiers. I
> think this applies especially to combat units.
>

> Personally speaking I would be extremely uncomfortable if not
> downright homophobic if I knew that someone I had to work with
> regularly was homosexual. This discomfort would undoubtedly affect my
> work detrimentally. There are others who would react violently to the
> presence of homosexuals. If this is not detrimental to the Armed
> Forces I don't know what is.
>

> I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
> but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
> defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that

> area MUST be avoided. This includes women in desegragated combat units
> as well. That same conditioning in our upbringing that causes us to
> abhor a homosexual would cause us to risk our lives unnecessarily with
> a female present.
>

> Consider this: Take a well disciplined squad or team and throw in a
> female and now you have 12 men competing against each other.
> Take that same squad and throw in a homosexual and now you have a pack
> and an outsider.
> In each scenario discipline and teamwork go out the window.
>

[Daniel England/Shaun Byrne]

In Australia I believe we have tests that weed people like you out of our
military/police forces.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Necromas [Daniel]
s33...@student.uq.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> Personally speaking I would be extremely uncomfortable if not

[Daniel England/Shaun Byrne]

Attacking someone's appearance is always a sign of being at a loss for
better comments

Grow up.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Necromas [Daniel]
s33...@student.uq.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

ang...@hotmail.com wrote in article <331c36e1...@nntp.netcruiser>...
> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:58:48 -0600, con...@neosoft.com (Conrad Sabatier)
> scribed:
>
> >In article <3312aba8...@nntp.netcruiser>,

> > ang...@hotmail.com writes:
> >> On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:19:11 -0600, con...@neosoft.com (Conrad
Sabatier)
> >> scribed:
> >>

> >>>Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether
it's
> >>>10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
> >>

> >> Minorities are generally persons who meet certain social criteria
based on

> >> conditions over which they have no control. An African American can't
change
> >> his skin color, a native american can't change where he or his
ancestors were
> >> born, a person born with uncorrectable blindness is not responsible
for his
> >> condition, A woman (in cases where she is classed as a minority) can't
change
> >> her sex. These are people who are true minorities.
> >>
> >> Homosexuals, on the other hand, chose an alternative life style based
on
> >> sexual preference.
> >
> >No, but we do choose to dismiss you as a disingenuous asshole.
> >
> >Thanks for playing. Bye.
>

> Bye...and do come back when your intellect has improved. At lest to the
degree
> that you can apply for an entry level position in the food chain.
>
> By the way..."Homosexuals chose an alternative life style based on sexual
> preference."...Don't you agree?
>
> ang...@hotmail.com
>
> P.S. The photo you have on the page you push is a "rat chaser". If you
look as
> bad as it appears I can understand why your queer...all women have
minimum
> limit on looks. You probably can't come close to jumping up and reaching
even
> the lowest one. The "boys" think you're a loser too, right?
>
>
> >Conrad Sabatier http://www.neosoft.com/~conrads
> >
> >
>
>

[Daniel England/Shaun Byrne]

I hate this whole American way of defining "natural".

Where the hell did you get it from?

Sounds to me like there where some very sick and repressed people
responsible for your laws!

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Necromas [Daniel]
s33...@student.uq.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

big...@mailmasher.com wrote in article
<330e6b45...@news.pipeline.com>...

[Daniel England/Shaun Byrne]

As a human being I have the right to choose for myself the life (especially
my sexual life) which I will lead.

The whole discussion of should we/shouldn't we should not be looked at in a
"what is the circumstance now" manner, but in a "what should things be
like" way.

Again and again the point of legal rights of coloured people (namely
"Negroes" in American history) and similar cases has been bought up because
it _is_, despite what most "homophobic" people might think, directly
comparable.

Put yourself in the period in which African-Americans had no rights other
than to be slaves of the Anglo-Americans (and the few others, if there were
any). Even though these people were and are entitled to basic, fundamental
HUMAN rights, they were denied them because of fear and power. Fear and
Power.

African-Americans always had the right to the rights they have now. They
were simply denied them at one point in history. Which was WRONG.

In the same way, people who choose to have sex with someone of the same sex
and more than that, have a on-going relationship with a PERSON of the same
sex are still entitled to BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

I reiterate. A PERSON who CHOOSES OR OTHERWISE to BE HOMOSEXUAL is STILL a
PERSON who is ENTITLED to FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

Simple.

Well, it would be if there wasn't a strong moral aversion. However,
MORALITY and LEGALITY are SEPARATE issues.

In Australia, Homosexuals are not requesting that the churches allow us to
be married (thereby changing the morality of those churches) but for the
legal right to marry under the state marriage system.

Of course, given that right, a new church, with a new morality is free to
offer "Gay" marriages. But we do not expect, nor want this for currently
existing churches.

How can I put this...We (as homosexual people however we may have come be)
simply want the right to live our lives as who we are. We don't hurt
anyone (I must add for some...without consent) and we don't want it all to
happen overnight (I think...of course soon would be very good!).

We simply want to be able to live without fear, with security and
happiness, to feel human.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Necromas [Daniel]
s33...@student.uq.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

big...@mailmasher.com wrote in article
<3308f924...@news.pipeline.com>...

[John Lawrence Rutledge]

In article <331b31da...@nntp.netcruiser>, <ang...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Meaningless homosexual claptrap. Heterosexuals don't demand special privileges
>as do homosexuals. Homosexuals who are highly deceptive and predicate their
>every claim on a "phoney" self imposed minority status.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with this statement. In their ruling
on Colorado's amendment 2, they struck it down because it gave special
rights to heterosexuals. The right was the ability to seek legal
recourse for discriminating based on heterosexuality. You see, the
amendment only forbid anti-discrimination laws for lesbian, gays,
and bisexuals. It left open the option for heterosexuals to have
sexual orientation based anti-discrimination laws.

>Fortunately lawmakers at all levels of government are beginning to listen to
>the people and are defying the PC pap of the ultra liberal and are now making
>laws to assure that the people are not short changed by the selfish demands of
>a phoney minority.
>
>Can you say DOMA?

Can you say unconstitutional?

From the US Constitution Article IV, Section I:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other
state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the
manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be
proved, and the effect thereof.

The only power the US Congress has regarding marriage licenses is
the ability set the standard by which a state proves it issued such a
license. Neither Congress nor other states has the constitutional
authority to refuse to honor such licenses. The DOMA will suffer the
same fate as the laws were states refused to honor Neveda's quicky
divorces - it will be struck down as unconstitutional.

+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| | "If only it were a modern document, with |
| John Lawrence Rutledge | a smart index and hyper links stretching |
| Research Assistant | all through the world data net. It was |
| Distributed Multimedia | terribly frustrating to flip back and |
| Systems Lab | forth between the pages and crude flat |
| Computer Science Department | illustrations that never even moved. Nor |
| UMass - Lowell | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins. |
| 1 University Ave. | It completely lacked a feel for sound. |
| Lowell, MA 01854 | "Most baffling of all was the problem |
| | new words... In normal text you'd only |
| (508) 934-3528 | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the |
| jrut...@cs.uml.edu | definition would pop up just below." |
| http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg | from David Brin's _Earth_ |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

[JEL]

ang...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On 17 Feb 1997 14:07:18 GMT, bgar...@pobox.com (Bruce Garrett) scribed:
>
> > ang...@hotmail.com meets certain criteria...
> >
> >

>
> Meaningless homosexual claptrap. Heterosexuals don't demand special privileges
> as do homosexuals. Homosexuals who are highly deceptive and predicate their
> every claim on a "phoney" self imposed minority status.
>

You don't read the news, do you?

In Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court ruled that hetrosexaual males
have minority status if they are harassed on the job by other
heterosexual males.

So this blows your arguments right out of your bigoted posterior.

[Coronal]

Johnson wrote:
>
> Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote in article
> <snip>

> > Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
> > 10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
> >
>

> Because they are not a "minority". They are people who have made a choice.

No. Sexuality is not a function of behavior. People can choose their
behavior, but not their orientation. I could put up a hetero facade if
I wanted to. I could go through the motions, even to the point of
marrying a woman and having sexual relations with her. But I would still
be gay, and that will never change, nor do I want it to.

[John Lawrence Rutledge]

In article <3308f924...@news.pipeline.com>,

<big...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:09:02 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
>wrote:
>>big...@mailmasher.com wrote:
>>>But honestly none of this really matters. Homosexuals have been hated
>>>in every society since the dawn of man.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most societies have accept
homosexuality. From Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd editions, Worth
Publishing Inc.: New York, 1987, page 255:

About of third of the societies include in the cross-culture
samples totally forbid homosexuality, or sexual relationships
toward the same sex. In these societies, the sanctions against
homosexuality range from ridicule to execution. In the
remaining societies, homosexual behavior is tolerated,
approved, and occasionally required.

>>On the contrary it is changing, rapidly, and THAT is the
>>cause of all the panic and excitement over what, finally, is
>>a non issue. This hatred and exclusion has been challenged
>>here in the Hawaiian courts -- the state was asked WHY they
>>would not issue a marriage license to same-gender couples
>>and they simply could not, cannot come up with a reason.
>>
>>This is because ther IS no reason -- if George and I are
>>permitted to protect each other by marrying after a 40 year
>>"engagement," how will anyone on earth be the poorer -- how
>>will our marriage negatively affect ANYONE'S het marriage?
>>It is not as if there were only a limited number of licenses
>>to be had and we were using them all up!
>
>Ther doesn't need to be a reason, simply that the majority find it
>abhorant.

Sorry, by the under the US Constitution, the majority doesn't always
rule. Read Federalist Papers numbers 9 and 10. These describe how
the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances keep
the wishes of the majority from taking away rights from a minority.
They also document historically how letting the majority rule always
lead to tyranny.

>>>I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
>>>but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
>>>defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that
>>
>>The military is there to defend the very same human rights,
>>the very same freedoms that you would, in the name of this
>>struggle, deny.
>
>Once again you have no Constitutional rights regarding homosexuality.
>Not until the Supreme court says so.

Your clearly don't understand the concept of rights under the US
Constitution. The government does determine what rights are. Rights
pre-exist any government. A free state simply recognized these
pre-existing rights. A tyranny refused to recognized some of these
rights. The actions of the Supreme Court involving rights only
determine whether we live in a free state or a tyranny. They do
not determine what are rights.

The Federalist were reluctant to list any rights in the Constitution
because people like you would take this list to mean that other
rights did not exist. However, many would not support a constitution
which did not list some rights. The Federalist compromise was the
inclusion of the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. I suggest you
read this amendment some time.

[Shawn Hicks]

ang...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Meaningless homosexual claptrap. Heterosexuals don't demand special privileges
> as do homosexuals. Homosexuals who are highly deceptive and predicate their
> every claim on a "phoney" self imposed minority status.

Heterosexuals get the special privilege of marriage. They don't need
to demand what they can simply give themselves. Heterosexuals get
the special privilege of Free Speech in the military--they can declare
their sexuality publicly and keep their job.

> Fortunately lawmakers at all levels of government are beginning to listen to
> the people and are defying the PC pap of the ultra liberal and are now making
> laws to assure that the people are not short changed by the selfish demands of
> a phoney minority.
>
> Can you say DOMA?

This only proves there's bigots in Congress too. Can you say
"Constitutional Challenge?"

> ang...@hotmail.com

[Shawn Hicks]

big...@mailmasher.com wrote:

> In Atlanta five years ago a man went to jail for 18 months for
> commiting sodomy with his wife.

I bet he went to jail on some other charge and sodomy was just
thrown in for fun. Did his wife, who participated in the
sodomy, go to jail too?

> In most states "unnatural" sexual acts are still criminal acts.

Don't be too sure about that. I think the figure is very close
to 50/50 these days. Nevada dropped its crimes against nature
law about 5 years ago.

> The post is federal property exempting them
> from local laws; but the post commanders have traditionally the local
> laws to the post. The UCMJ still exists. Just because a few people
> lookthe other way doesn't make what is done any more legal.

The UCMJ prohibits adultery and sex outside of marriage in addition
to sodomy. If the military were to actively prosecute its members
under these laws there would be very little military left. The
fact is, these laws are almost always selectively applied. It isn't
a "few people" that look the other way but the entire legal system.

> I have never gotten a ticket for doing 66 in a 65 but that doesn't
> make it legal.

So...?

[Peter Miller]

bgar...@pobox.com (Bruce Garrett) wrote: . . . You wouldn't like
it any better if the laws
>were crafted around a basic presumption of homosexuality, and judging from
>the half baked way you argue for heterosexual supremacy, under the
>circumstances you'd probably be more a hindrance then a help in the fight
>for heterosexual rights.

This whole argument can be reduced to its bare essentials which
are: you either believe that being gay is predetermined or you
don't. So far, the only evidence pointing to the first position
is strictly anecdotal (like the guy at the Salk institute who
came out with his results about the hypothalamus) and not a real
comparison of populations. So until/if that happens, the
majority of those of us are not homosexual will continue to see
it as a choice, and as such, one that can/should be discriminated
against. As regards the military, it is the one institution that
discriminates all over the place: against the fat and the thin,
against those with disablities, against the very young and the
old, against those who are sick and against women, against the
very tall and the very short, against those who do not speak
english well. This is all based on the idea that its mission is
so unique and specialized (after all, name any other organization
which trains its members to kill, maim and destroy) that in order
to perform it, it must lay outside the rest of the laws that
govern us. In the sense that it is perceived that having "out"
homosexuals in its ranks takes away from that mission, they will
be discriminated against.
The other point I wanted to make is that the military is one of
the few places in the US where the individual is told from day
one that his needs and concerns are secondary (actually, way less
than that, as an ensign, my CO told me that "first come the needs
of the Fleet, then those of the squadron, then those of the ship
and then come yours") and that the organization is bigger than
him. We all had to subsume some essential part of our
personalities in order to make the organization run smoothly.
Considering that sex on duty is banned anyway, and that the new
policy permits the entry of homosexuals into the military, I
don't see what the big stink is. Like I said, there's a lot of
personal sacrifice involved in being in the military, gays are
just going to have to do what the heteros have been doing all
along. And if you think it's too much to ask, then don't join,
it's a voluntary deal anyway.
Saludos,
Pete

[John Simpson]

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:34:03 GMT, big...@mailmasher.com said unto us:

>On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:19:52 GMT, festeatmindspringdotcom (John
>Simpson) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:09:32 GMT, big...@mailmasher.com said unto us:
>

>When the reaction of almost every heterosexual male in our society is
>akin to that of the reaction of a person to a snake or spider then
>it's not hatred or prejudice it's almost instinctual. It is almost a
>norm.

It's exactly like hatred and prejudice, in that people can be
educated out of it (to some extent). What were the chances of
same-sex marriage becoming an issue twenty, or even ten, years ago?
This, and the existence of ANY legal protection for homosexuals, are
evidence of a shift in public attitudes--such laws are never simply
foisted on the population, despite some right-wing claims; there is
rather a climate which enables such laws even to be discussed.
We saw what happened in '93, when homosexuals were suddenly not
quite the hunted species they once were. Yeah, the military had its
"Clinton's Army" jokes, and plenty of rhyming slogans, but order and
discipline did not break down. Soldiers did not, on the whole, lose
the ability to perform their jobs. The sky did not fall.
I've heard the "foxhole" arguments, and found them to be evidence
only of the homophobia you describe. I've also heard an interesting
corollary--one soldier, the loudest proponent of the "foxhole"
argument in my unit, later confessed that he'd rather KNOW who was or
was not gay. It was the "don't ask, don't tell" which got his dander
up. He eventually relaxed (somewhat) even on this point, when he
realized that there had always been homosexuals in service.

>>>I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
>>>but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
>>>defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that

>>>area MUST be avoided.
>>

>> This is why even the military is starting to preach against
>>sexual harrassment. Firing the victims is not an option.
>
>This has nothing to do with sexual harrassment. The typical male
>reaction is the hackle raising hair standing on end reaction you get
>when you walk up on something extremely distastelul

I'm not sure how to convince you, when it seems so obvious to me.
Violence resulting from suspicions of sexual orientation? Offenders
who use positions of power (their majority) to intimidate a minority?
Of course these are the power dynamics of sexual harrassment!
This also has some of the stench of racism to it. Your arguments
predicting wholesale chaos disappeared (eventually) after blacks were
integrated into the Army, and again after women became a fixture
(among REMFs).
I agree with you that homophobia is propped up by something
fundamental within men (insecurity in sexual identity), but such
attitudes have already proven somewhat mutable.

>>>Consider this: Take a well disciplined squad or team and throw in a
>>>female and now you have 12 men competing against each other.
>>>Take that same squad and throw in a homosexual and now you have a pack
>>>and an outsider.
>>>In each scenario discipline and teamwork go out the window.
>>

>> In each scenario, the so-called "discipline and teamwork" was too
>>fragile--how would we expect it to hold up under fire? Good leaders
>>find more to bind their soldiers together than bigotry.
>>

>This has nothing to do with bigotry.

Check your scenarios again. What you have described is nothing
more than bigotry.

>Would you expect 99% of the male population to undergo emotional

>reeducation (dare I say brainwashing) just to make you more comfortable.

99% don't need retraining. Only the 5% who are usually
trouble-makers. The rest will eventually shut up and do their jobs,
just as we saw in the integration of blacks and women.
Anyone who needs brainwashing to be able to concentrate on his
job, or would have other soldiers fired "just to make [him] more
comfortable," would better serve his country by leaving the military.

>Homosexuals look the same but don't act the same. Maybe that's the
>problem, like something out of invasion of the bodysnatchers.

Another old myth. Those who claim to be able to smell a
homosexual a mile away have not proven effective in identifying them
so far. Open service WOULD, however, give them convenient targets for
venting hatred.
This would make it easy for us to locate the hard-core bigots,
and retrain or discharge them as appropriate. Bigots who proved more
tractable could remain, as they already do, muttering against a system
of which they don't wholeheartedly approve (but doing their jobs as
good soldiers).

>>>Without major social acceptance you should never have homosexuals
>>>OPENLY serving.
>>

>> Until our government is willing to admit OPENLY that all
>>taxpayers are worthy of service, complete social acceptance is
>>impossible.
>
>You misunderstand me. I never said that homosexuals weren't worthy of
>service,

I never said you did. My view is that the political climate is
right, or soon will be, for legislation that makes the military live
up to American ideals of liberty. Until then, our government is
shoring up homophobia, by EFFECTIVELY telling the world that
homosexuals are unfit to serve alongside supposedly "normal" people.

>only that it would be detrimental if they were to openly
>declare they were homosexuals.

And you see no parallels with racism or sexism? Perhaps you'd
better start over, listing what you feel would be the precise
consequences of:

a) a soldier's being strongly suspected of homosexuality, and

b) a soldier's homosexuality being proven or declared.

Statistics from (for example) the Australian army would be useful
at this point.

>If you want to work any where you want, you have a right to apply but
>you have no right to be hired. Nobody does.

If the right to apply were matched by a right not to be fired for
silly reasons, I would be happy with that.

>I believe that OPEN homosexuality is incompatible with the Armed
>Forces.

Yeah, I've been through NCO courses, and sat through long, boring
discussions of the reasoning behind the regulations. However, good
ol' chapter 15 doesn't provide any clues as to its origins. It simply
says, "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." No
supporting evidence, no reasons....nothing. That's all anyone ever
got out of Colin Powell back in '93. It's the only response we got
from any high-ranking military leaders.
It's an excuse that the military hides behind, to avoid the
admittedly difficult process of adjustment to the presence of a
minority.

>Just as I believe that smoking marijuana is incompatible with
>the Armed Forces.

Marijuana is about as detrimental as alcohol, it seems to me. A
double standard, to be sure, but as I don't use either, no skin off my
teeth. Perhaps we should legislate against drinking by soldiers--
surely drunkenness is contrary to good order and discipline.

>There are many who would quit a regular job if told they had to work with
>homosexuals. In the Armed Forces this not an option.

Yep. They sign on agreeing to work with whomever DA, in its
infinite wisdom, puts in the chairs next to them. No significant
exodus occurred, however, when blacks or women were integrated, and I
believe that any such threats are greatly exaggerated (despite the
ease with which an unhappy soldier can get out these days). As in
most jobs, the malcontents eventually simmer down and get back to
work. The Army goes rolling along.

>No one should be forced to work with someone that they have a
>deep religious and moral conviction against(not to mention the
>instinctual gut reaction of many against).

You're right. Let's kick out everyone who is not a white male
Mormon :-)
Seiously, no one has to stay in today's military, despite the
fine print on enlistment contracts. The environment is too
competitive.
Guess those religious and moral convictions aren't as deep as one
might think. I haven't heard of anyone who wanted out because of the
presence of homosexuals. Come to think of it, I haven't heard of
anyone quitting any job because of this.

>I will continue to believe such until such time that the Supreme Court
>says it's unconstitutional. At that time my statements will reflect
>what the UCMJ says they have to reflect but not my feelings.

As most soldiers' public statements already do.

>(I guess I'm too old to learn new tricks)

You are not the first to admit so. However, I believe that even
you could look past your prejudice, given time. Most people are
surprised at how much capacity for change they have within themselves,
following a painful process of discarding dogma.
The ultimate pay-off, IMO, will be a flag we can all salute more
proudly.

Peace,

John Simpson
fe...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~feste
----------------------------------------------------

"A crowded elevator smells different to a dwarf."

[Shawn Hicks]

big...@mailmasher.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:19:52 GMT, festeatmindspringdotcom (John
> Simpson) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:09:32 GMT, big...@mailmasher.com said unto us:
> >

> >>Personally speaking I would be extremely uncomfortable if not
> >>downright homophobic if I knew that someone I had to work with
> >>regularly was homosexual. This discomfort would undoubtedly affect my
> >>work detrimentally. There are others who would react violently to the
> >>presence of homosexuals. If this is not detrimental to the Armed
> >>Forces I don't know what is.

> > Firing homosexual people is NOT the obvious solution here. How

> >about dumping the folks whose performance is not up to par, who allow
> >their personal hatred to interfere with their duties?

> Homosexuals aren't being fired for doing homosexual things or for
> being homosexual, they are being fired for letting people know about
> it. You can go out and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't
> become public knowledge.

So much for the First Ammendment, eh?

> When the reaction of almost every heterosexual male in our society is
> akin to that of the reaction of a person to a snake or spider then
> it's not hatred or prejudice it's almost instinctual. It is almost a
> norm.

It's taught. Take, for example, the reactions of heterosexual women
to homosexual men, heterosexual women to homosexual women, and
heterosexual men to homosexual women. In each of these cases, the
reaction will be different because the reaction is not based on
innate sexuality but on how that sexuality affects the roles society
has created for the genders. The idea of watching lesbians have
sex is appealing enough that this theme is fairly common in
mainstream heterosexual male pornography.

If your're capable of some imagination, consider the reaction of
a homosexual male to a sexual advance from a heterosexual female.
I don't get violent, or disgusted, or revolted; I just have no
interest in much the same way I'd have no interest if a male I
was not attracted to made a sexual advance.

This "ick" factor that some straight men go through is taught.

> >>I have heard the arguement that we would get used to it after a time,
> >>but the military is not there to be a social experiment it is there to
> >>defend our country. Anything that causes a lack of efficiency in that
> >>area MUST be avoided.
> >
> > This is why even the military is starting to preach against
> >sexual harrassment. Firing the victims is not an option.

> This has nothing to do with sexual harrassment. The typical male
> reaction is the hackle raising hair standing on end reaction you get
> when you walk up on something extremely distastelul

This paragraph is a gem. So sexual harrassment isn't an extremely
distasteful thing to a typical male? Why is that? Is it because
we are talking about sexual harrassment of a female by a male and
homosexuality makes it possible to have sexual harrassment of males
by males? Sounds like a power and privilege issue.

> > In each scenario, the so-called "discipline and teamwork" was too
> >fragile--how would we expect it to hold up under fire? Good leaders
> >find more to bind their soldiers together than bigotry.

> This has nothing to do with bigotry. Would you expect 99% of the male
> population to undergo emotional reeducation(dare I say brainwashing)

> just to make you more comfortable.

Nope. I expect disciplined soldiers to know that their feeling of
"ickiness" is their own problem and their own issue to deal with and
to behave as professionals. However, we have seen in recent months
just how "disciplined" our soldiers really are. I don't get
uncomfortable knowing someone near me doesn't approve of my religion,
my race, or my sexual orientation. I just expect them to treat me
with respect and get the job done.

> Prejudice is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is a survival trait
> passed down through millions of years that is not going to just go
> away no matter the training.

This prejudice is taught. There is no survival issue involved in
homosexuality.

> Prejudice is the instinctive distrust and distaste of the outsider.
> This is how many isolated tribes today still react to interlopers;

> even to the point of violence.

Are you defending racism?

> Most prejudice can be overcome. For example the prejudice against
> blacks in the US has been largely overcome in the last 20 years. But
> they are fundamentally the same as whites. They have no fundamental
> behavioral differences that are found instinctively abhorrant.

> Homosexuals look the same but don't act the same. Maybe that's the
> problem, like something out of invasion of the bodysnatchers.

Oh. I see. It's not how we look, because prejudice based on that
is wrong, right? It's how we *act*. Is this the "swish" and the
"limp wrist" and the "lite loafers" I hear so much about?

> > Until our government is willing to admit OPENLY that all
> >taxpayers are worthy of service, complete social acceptance is
> >impossible.

> You misunderstand me. I never said that homosexuals weren't worthy of

> service, only that it would be detrimental if they were to openly
> declare they were homosexuals. I have little doubt that I have worked
> with homosexuals in the past. I just haven't known it. If I had, my
> feelings toward them would have been totally different. About 10 years
> ago an E-7 in my unit got "caught in the act" so to speak, this guy
> had to be isolated from all for his own protection. His own friends
> wouldn't speak with him after that.

Some "friends." It was fairly common knowledge in my squadron that
I was homosexual. I never talked about it and no one ever brought
it up, but it was known. Oddly enough, I worked fine in the
squadron, got lots of work done, made friends with my co-workers
and basically got along fine. I had no illusions that some of
those people wouldn't invite to their homes, but that would be
true if I were black and in any case it didn't interfere with my
ability to work.

> If you want to work any where you want, you have a right to apply but
> you have no right to be hired. Nobody does.

We have laws that require capable applicants to be viewed outside of
race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. You may not avoid hiring
someone based on these factors alone. "Nobody does," then, is a
little short sighted. It's also important to note that in most
jobs, sexual orientation is not work-related. In other words,
homosexuality or heterosexuality or bisexuality does not affect
the ability of a person to do a job.

> I believe that OPEN homosexuality is incompatible with the Armed
> Forces.

"Open" homosexuality is a free speech issue and it isn't the
homosexuality that creates problems in the military but the
lack of discipline of the biggoted soldiers.

> Just as I believe that smoking marijuana is incompatible with
> the Armed Forces.

Can you honestly compare a mind-altering drug to sexual orientation?
About the only similarity I can draw between these two is that
bigotry is "mind altering" in that it prevents you from thinking
rationally. However, that would support a ban on bigots not
on homosexuals so I doubt you were trying to draw that comparison.

> There are many who would quit a regular job if told
> they had to work with homosexuals.

Proof of bigotry. In my current job, not only am I openly gay,
but my lifepartner is also an employee (in a different department
and building) and is known by my co-workers. Not one person has
quit in my area and not one person has quit in Tim's area. We
hold a yearly Christmas party at our home and only two co-workers
have failed to attend. I'd say you are wrong in the use of the
word "many" and might be more accurate if you said "few."

> In the Armed Forces this not an option.

> No one should be forced to work with someone that they have a
> deep religious and moral conviction against(not to mention the
> instinctual gut reaction of many against).

And yet the military doesn't offer this "special right" for
athiest who don't want to work with christians or jews who
don't want to work with christians or white supremesists who
don't want to work with blacks, etc. But you'd use this
argument to support excluding homosexuals or at least
homosexuals with full access to the First Amendment right of
free speech.

> I will continue to believe such until such time that the Supreme Court
> says it's unconstitutional. At that time my statements will reflect
> what the UCMJ says they have to reflect but not my feelings.

So, what you're telling me is that until the law says you can no
longer behave with prejudice against homosexuals you will and when
that law changes you will modify your behavior to comply? You
are capable, then, of treating gay and lesbian soldiers as soldiers
but currently choose not to?

> (I guess I'm too old to learn new tricks)

I never considered tolerance a "trick." I kinda thought of it
as a skill of the disciplined.

--

[Terry Moore]

In article <01bc1daa$58299fe0$62676682@byrne>,

"Daniel England/Shaun Byrne" <s33...@student.uq.edu.au> says:
>
>It has to do with discrimination because you seem to have taken the point
>of view that people, due to their sexual interests/actions, should be
>denied certain benefits available to other people.
>

********************************************************************

"SEEM to have taken"??????

Terry at Lake Bastrop

******************************************************************

[Coronal]

cat...@mailmasher.com wrote:
> If I read you correctly you are saying that children should be taught
> that the sexual preference of homosexuals is as appropriate as the
> sexual preference of heterosexuals and at a proper time they can freely
> participate in either.
>
> Is this essentially what you mean, or have I misunderstood you?
>
> One further question: After this teaching that you propose, would the
> homosexual in your scenerio feel perfectly comfortable if he were
> approached for the pupose of sexual intercourse, by a heterosexual
> woman?

Speaking for myself, I've been in that situation, and had no problem
with it. I didn't share their feelings, but I appreciated the
compliment.

[Coronal]

ang...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:20:12 -0800, des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio)
> scribed:

>
> >In article <331a302e...@nntp.netcruiser>, ang...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Why do you bring up religion? Is it in your genes that you use it as a crutch
> >> even when it's not part of the discussion?
> >>
> >> Angle
> >
> >I brought up religion because people belonging to religions
> >constitute protected minorities.
> >
> >It is DEFINITELY part of the discussion when people like you
> >constantly claim that homosexuals cannot be a protected
> >minority because of what they "choose" to be or do.
> >
> >Religion is a CHOICE.
> >
> >--
> >John
>

> Grade 4....Social Studies: Students, you government guarantees you
> freedom of religion.

He simply pointed out that minorities can claim protection from
discrimination even though their identifying trait is chosen. You
would grant protection to one group from discrimination because of
something that they choose, but you would deny homosexuals the same
protection beacuse you claim that they "choose" their sexuality.

> Do you recall hearing anything said about your homosexual problem?

The problem isn't his, it's yours.

[Coronal]

But hets are not required to keep their sexuality a secret, nor are
they required to remain celibate.

[Johnson]

<snip>

> Until our government is willing to admit OPENLY that all
> taxpayers are worthy of service, complete social acceptance is
> impossible.

So it is via the military that you hope to gain social acceptance. Just as
so many have said all along.
I gots some news for you. Society doesn't always agree with what the
government says or does.

[thej...@aol.com]

Coronal <Wha...@Zone.com> wrote:

If you wish to be animal, go ahead....but don't act like you are a
minority....it puts real minorities in a bad light. You are a queer
because you are either sick evil or perverted....no other reason.

[dion...@infinet.com]

big...@mailmasher.com said:

}In Atlanta five years ago a man went to jail for 18 months for

}commiting sodomy with his wife. In most states "unnatural" sexual acts
}are still criminal acts.

All right, let's see if you're up to the truth. Tell us, please, whether
this was part of a divorce proceeding or not. Tell us, oh please do,
whether it was a friendly divorce. Tell us who wanted a few things that
the husband had. Go ahead. (Or did ya think that the newspapers aren't
archived, and available electronically?) Tell us how the police hunted
down this fellow. Tell us how he was caught in a sting. Tell us how the
wife revealed that little tidbit. Go ahead.

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

AT&T Subspace: The next best thing to beaming there.

[Bruce Garrett]

Ang...@hotmail.com has a few less then some people...

A> If you are of a racial or ethnic minority you may have a few more
A> privileges than I.

Oh, do name a few of those...it's always charming to watch a
homophobe show us their racist belly too...

A> Surveys consistently show homosexuals have a higher average income than
A> the norm, so you have jobs.

Right...point of fact the guy I'm dating now has two jobs, one of
which is a nightshift stocking shelves in a grocery store. Awesome pay
scales in that business when you're nonunion dude, let me tell you. His
day is typically fourteen hours and for that he still shows a net that's
way less then the national average, but at least he can afford to pay his
share of the rent in the townhouse he shares with two other guys. He can't
afford a car, and in the state he's living in that means he can't get a
driver's license. He's still paying off the student tuition loan that got
him through school after his stint in the Navy, and next time I go to visit
him, I'll know better then to bring it up as a topic of discussion.

Sitting here on my butt writing Visual Basic code for better then
three times the best money he makes an hour it might seem like I've got it
made compared to him, but six years ago I was living in almost precisely
the same conditions (sans student loan...I did the local community college
thing instead...). I'm 43. It wasn't until I was 38 that I was able to
afford to rent a one bedroom apartment of my own. Before that it was life
with my parents, then an assortment of roommates. You know you're finally
on your own when you decide where the thermostat gets set. Before becoming
an applications developer, I worked in a variety of occupations (the sordid
details of which are my web page, but don't bother with my photo...I don't
give a rat's ass how fetching a milk baby likes you thinks I am), and
barely made enough to afford a room in someone's basement. My first car
was a 1993 Ford Pinto. I bought it precisely because it was cheap and it
looked like it would be easy to take care of, and did almost all the
service on it myself not because I am particularly fond of grease but
because I had no means to pay anyone else to do the work. When it died
after 135 thousand miles of service I was unable to afford another car of
my own for years.

I'd never owned a suit that didn't come from a second hand rack
somewhere, until just recently. I didn't even bother applying for a
credit card until I was 39. At that age I could count the number of guys
I'd slept with on the fingers of one hand. Now I need to include one of
the fingers of the other to do the trick. Almost three years ago I was
able to move into an apartment with a full size washer and dryer built
right in, and I think then was when I knew that I really had it made. For
weeks after settling in here I'd occasionally walk over to the laundry
closet and open the doors wide and just stand there looking at them in
amazement. Success is not having to compete with 11 other families in
your building for the same washer and dryer. At 43 I am just beginning to
get a taste of the legendary American Middle Class Lifestyle. If I ever
get my hands on the joker who stole my share of the Fabulous Gay Lifestyle
I'm going to throttle him.

So. I see a few surveys have shown everyone pretty conclusively
that homosexuals making higher wages then the national average are a lot
more likely to be open about their sexual orientation. What a profound
insight this represents! Just imagine, having money to spare makes one a
little more daring, a little less cautious. Awesome! I for one, certainly
had no idea money could have this kind of effect on people!

Take a look at the budget of any typical Gay rights organization
to see how much money homosexuals are making. When I worked as a
volunteer for one such, I got an eyeful of how hard it is for our
community service organizations just to make ends meet.

A> You have equal and in some cases, superior access to all educational
A> institutions...

Tell it to the Gay kids who are terrorized every year into
dropping out of high school. Tell it to the Gay kids whose parents
disowned them, long before they had a chance to even think about college.

A> The government (of Hawaii) has agreed to give homosexual "couples" all
A> the privileges afforded heterosexuals who are married.

Total bullshit. They have decided nothing, and none of the bills
being debated currently give homosexuals anything nearly approaching "all
the privileges" of marriage.

A> Now, What was your complaint?

The question, bigot, is what's yours. Feel free to tell us all
about it either before or after you tell us how privileged racial
minorities are over white people...

[dion...@infinet.com]

Johnson (miny...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net) said:

}Because they are not a "minority". They are people who have made a choice.

Oh. I see. And because you are the Dictator of Morality, and since you
perceive the choice to be a wrong one, then these people are no longer to
be treated to the basic protections extended to the rest of the citizenry
of your fine little theocracy?

Got news for ya: This ain't Iran, it's America. Want your opinions to be
law? Move. (Of course, after you move, you'll have to kill off the ruler
of your new beloved nation, but hey, what's life without a little danger?)

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

There may be no 3 in THREE, but there is a 4 in FIVE, and 9 in SIX, and 1
in EIGHT, and in TWELVE, there's 55!

[dion...@infinet.com]

Terry Moore (terry...@mail.utexas.edu) said:

}The source of the 10% myth was the Kinsey report which found that
}10% of the convicts in prisons engaged in homosexual conduct.
}Homosexual leaders then tried to pass that Kinsey figure off as
}being representative of the US population as a whole.

Really. Do try harder. Please cite the study for that assertion. If
you're lazy, you can just give us a page number and we'll post the
contents of that page.

Kinsey did not rely on prison populations. If you disagree, cite.

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

"Given the importance of tolerance to a humanistic democracy, are there
limits to be placed on it? Yes, though this must be stated with caution.
Let me suggest why. It is clear that tolerance does not apply to all
actions; we are tolerant of beliefs and the expression of beliefs, of
thought and conscience, and speech. But where belief or speech translate
into action, a civilized society has the right to regulate conduct and
enact legislation to protect the public good. We cannot, for example,
condone violence; nor can we allow people to do whatever they wish if this
will harm others, or prevent them from exercising their rights..."

-- Paul Kurtz

[dion...@infinet.com]

ang...@hotmail.com said:

}Meaningless homosexual claptrap. Heterosexuals don't demand special privileges
}as do homosexuals.

Heterosexuals aren't denied marriage. Heterosexuals aren't denied hospital
visitation of their lover. Heterosexuals can't be fired in the 41 states
that the homosexuals can, simply for being what they are. Heterosexuals
have no problems with joint tax returns. Heterosexuals have no problems
getting the spouse on the insurance policy at work. Heterosexuals aren't
lobbied against by powerful religious groups in front of Congress.

You're right. We simply MUST be priviledged if we can have all of that.

}Homosexuals who are highly deceptive and predicate their
}every claim on a "phoney" self imposed minority status.

Oh dear, the "hotmail" mind is onto us! They've uncovered our secret
quota system! They know that we've decided to bump up the numbers for
next year! The "sexual lottery" is in danger!!! DANGER! DANGER Will Robinson!

'scuse me. It's time for my haldol...

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

She won't last forever, so why give her a diamond?

[Bruce Garrett]

ang...@hotmail.com...

>> Rhetoric. The boundaries of law you refer to are grounded in the
>> presumption that everyone is, or ought to be coerced into being,
>> heterosexual. So all you're saying here is that homosexuals don't like
>> that arrangement. No shit Sherlock. You wouldn't like it any better if
>> the laws were crafted around a basic presumption of homosexuality...

A> Meaningless homosexual claptrap.

If you weren't a bigot, you wouldn't have needed that extra
adjective there. See how much wasted extra effort prejudice causes...?

A> Heterosexuals don't demand special privileges as do homosexuals.

Be pretty pointless since they already have them, wouldn't it?

A> Can you say DOMA?

Can you say Evans Verses Romer?

[Bruce Garrett]

ang...@hotmail.com...

A> P.S. The photo you have on the page you push is a "rat chaser".

What's it to you, guy? Crusing the web pages of Gay guys to see
how good they look, are we...?

[dion...@infinet.com]

big...@mailmasher.com said:

}Homosexuals aren't being fired for doing homosexual things or for
}being homosexual, they are being fired for letting people know about
}it. You can go out and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't
}become public knowledge.

Oh. I see. As long as my employer doesn't harbor a Christian, I'm ok. But
if that Christian should just once see me holding hands with another man
as I walk down the street to a movie, well then I should be fired. Yep.
Makes sense to me.

}When the reaction of almost every heterosexual male in our society is
}akin to that of the reaction of a person to a snake or spider then
}it's not hatred or prejudice it's almost instinctual. It is almost a
}norm.

And yet herpetologists are generally not beaten with bats... Odd that.

}This has nothing to do with sexual harrassment. The typical male
}reaction is the hackle raising hair standing on end reaction you get
}when you walk up on something extremely distastelul

So don't walk up on it.

}This has nothing to do with bigotry. Would you expect 99% of the male
}population to undergo emotional reeducation(dare I say brainwashing)
}just to make you more comfortable.

Got me. I'd say that only about 5% actually might need it.

}Prejudice is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is a survival trait
}passed down through millions of years that is not going to just go
}away no matter the training.

Ah. Hate is in your genes. I see.

}Most prejudice can be overcome.

And yet you're extreemly adverse to the concept of confronting your own...

}You misunderstand me. I never said that homosexuals weren't worthy of
}service, only that it would be detrimental if they were to openly
}declare they were homosexuals.

"I'm Gay".

There. You may now sue me for harming you in some fashion. Go ahead. I've
even given you my permission. I'll even plead guilty. What could be more
convenient?

}I believe that OPEN homosexuality is incompatible with the Armed
}Forces.

Good, honerable behavior is incompatible with the armed forces if the
newspapers are any indication.

You were trying to make a point?

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

If sex is a pain in the ass, you're doing it wrong.

[Ward Stewart]

"Johnson" <miny...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Conrad Sabatier <con...@neosoft.com> wrote in article
><snip>
>> Let's assume for the moment that you're correct. So what? Whether it's
>> 10% or 1%, how do you justify discrimination against *any* minority?
>>

>Because they are not a "minority". They are people who have made a choice.

As have Jews or Catholics?

ward
*******************************************************
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals
and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals.
That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals.
It's just that they need more supervision."
-Lynne Lavner

[Bruce Garrett]

terry...@mail.utexas.edu (Terry Moore) defines it for us...

TM> Your word "dishonesty" is relevant though. You call it "dishonesty",
TM> I call it "credibility".

Yah...but look who's calling it credibility...

TM> The source of the 10% myth was the Kinsey report which found that
TM> 10% of the convicts in prisons engaged in homosexual conduct.

This is such a pathetic misrepresentation of the Kinsey study that
I can't believe it's simply ignorant. This is calculation, and it makes
the posturing that follows a real belly laugh.

TM> Now, if the Homosexual leaders who postulated that 10% figure actually
TM> believed what they were saying, then the 10% figure is a myth. If they
TM> knew that those figures were false, then the 10% figure was a hoax. A
TM> hoax is "dishonest" and impacts the credibility of the homosexual
TM> leaders on the subject of homosexual population and that damaged
TM> credibility carries over to other claims from the homosexual
TM> leadership.

The Homosexual Leaders...The Homosexual Leaders...The Homosexual
Leaders...The Homosexual Leaders...The Homosexual Leaders... Does a
crackpot like you ever lay awake at nights wondering if the homosexual
conspiracy is a subset of the international zionist conspiracy, or the
international communist conspiracy, or if it is just being subcontracted
out by the trilateral commission?

Hoax, did you say? You mean like claiming that somebody in
Atlanta got sent to Jail for having consensual oral sex with his wife,
when in fact you knew they were estranged, going through a divorce, and she
had accused him of rape? Hoax? Like posting homosexual discharge figures
purporting to show that Don't Ask Don't Tell had reduced those discharges,
by cooking the figures with stats from the years you knew were well before
the policy was even being considered, let alone implemented? That kind of
Hoax? Think it's some kind of dishonest do you? I'm laughing in your
face...

TM> I still do not see what this has to do with discrimination.

It's pretty simple, dink. Bigots lie. Bigots like you for
instance.

[Bruce Garrett]

terry...@mail.utexas.edu (Terry Moore) going badly...but going
nonetheless...

>>> In Atlanta five years ago a man went to jail for 18 months for
>>> commiting sodomy with his wife.

>> I'd just love to see the news accounts of that, because in all
>> likelihood there was something else involved in it besides the sex they
>> were having.

TM> The divorce was going badly - the guy was not being a gentleman
TM> about it at all. However, he had not broken the law so they
TM> couldn't find a way to protect the woman.

Not being a gentleman about it seems to be putting it mildly. I
see you're still as disingenuous as you were a year ago when you posted
stats purporting to prove that discharges of homosexuals hadn't risen
since Don't Ask Don't Tell was implemented, that placed the beginning of
the policy somewhere in the middle of the Bush administration. This man's
estranged wife accused him of rape. Clearly the prosecutors believed her.
Clearly the jury was at least inclined to believe her, even if they found
they couldn't convict on that charge on the evidence. Tell me any of them
would have sent him to jail Just for consensual sodomy with his wife. This
had nothing to do with the sexual positions they assumed. It was about
rape. That you trivialize that, speaks volumns about you:

TM> The news article was written in a semi-humorous vein...

Rape, being such a semi humorous thing after all...right Terry?

[Ward Stewart]

ang...@hotmail.com wrote:

>Meaningless homosexual claptrap. Heterosexuals don't demand special privileges
>as do homosexuals.

You mean that hets do not demand to be married at city hall?
The situation is that these "special rights" you are going
on about are the rights that hets have and take for granted
-- your dis-honesty and self-delusion are almost infinite.

>Homosexuals who are highly deceptive and predicate their
>every claim on a "phoney" self imposed minority status.

There is NOTHING phony about your hatred fro a group of
folks who are "different" -- it is this hatred of YOURS
which defines us as a minority, more surely than anything
that WE could do or say.

ward

>Fortunately lawmakers at all levels of government are beginning to listen to
>the people and are defying the PC pap of the ultra liberal and are now making
>laws to assure that the people are not short changed by the selfish demands of
>a phoney minority.

Itis difficult to imagine the inormity of the mental block
that you must have to make the idea of equal appear to be
"selfish"

How "selfish" that Rosa Parks is, not riding in the back of
the bus! How dare she demand "special" rights?

ward

>Can you say DOMA?

Can you say FUTILE?

[dion...@infinet.com]

ang...@hotmail.com said:

}P.S. The photo you have on the page you push is a "rat chaser". If you look as
}bad as it appears I can understand why your queer...all women have minimum
}limit on looks. You probably can't come close to jumping up and reaching even
}the lowest one. The "boys" think you're a loser too, right?

Oh Conrad! Whatever will you do? She thinks you've chosen to be gay.
She's seen the pic and agrees that you probably should be. But still she
chastizes you for being gay in the first place! Dear, oh dear! This is a
dilemma worthy of jumping off of a tall building over!

[ tune in for our next exciting enstallment, when we hear Beavus say
"gnarly" ]

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

When nature is calling, plain speaking is out
When the ladies, God bless 'em, are milling about;
You may wee-wee, make water or empty the glass
You can powder your nose, even Johnny can pass.
Shake the dew off the lily, see a man about a dog
When everyone's drunk, it's condensing the fog.
But please to remember if you would know bliss
That only in Shakespeare do characters ----

(Found in _The Legacy of Heorot_)

[dion...@infinet.com]

Ang...@hotmail.com said:

}Surveys consistently show homosexuals have a higher average income than the

}norm, so you have jobs.

Surveys of gays whom subscribe to the "Wall Street Journal", another
"money type" magazine, and the latest which surveyed members of certain
high-end mail-order companies, and plastic holders. Yeah, like there'd be
many minimum-wage-earning fags there...

The survey says: You've been watching a tad too much Family Fued when ya
should have been looking at the small print.

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy
to handle: you've solved the wrong problem. Work hard to improve.

[dion...@infinet.com]

cass...@pacific.com said:

}You're doing essentially the same thing that homosexuals of NAMBLA
}(those who prefer pre-puberty boys) are doing when they identify with
}other homosexual groups.

Oh? NAMBLA is after consensual sex? Really? And the people that NAMBLA
wants to have that consensual sex with are of "the age of censent"?

When did that happen?

What's that? "It hasn't, and never has" you say? So what's your problem?
A lack of grey matter perhaps?

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

"A cynic is a person searching for an honest man, with a stolen lantern."

-- Edgar A. Shoaff

[Ward Stewart]

1...@...9 wrote:

>On 18 Feb 1997 16:26:48 GMT, "Daniel England/Shaun Byrne"
><s33...@student.uq.edu.au> scribed:

>>As a human being I have the right to choose for myself the life (especially
>>my sexual life) which I will lead.
>>
>>The whole discussion of should we/shouldn't we should not be looked at in a
>>"what is the circumstance now" manner, but in a "what should things be
>>like" way.
>>
>>Again and again the point of legal rights of coloured people (namely
>>"Negroes" in American history) and similar cases has been bought up because
>>it _is_, despite what most "homophobic" people might think, directly
>>comparable.

>Colin Powell, a well known blackman, respected by both blacks and whites
>alike, would disagree with you. To put it as simply as I can...He says
>"There is no comparison."

And any number of black civil rights leaders say otherwise
--

[dion...@infinet.com]

Johnson (miny...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net) said:

}I gots some news for you. Society doesn't always agree with what the
}government says or does.

Yes. I do seem to recall that "society" was all for the crucifiction of
Jesus.

Oops. Low blow. How queer of me. ;>

Just because "everybody's doing it" doesn't make it "right".

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

In an article about the merits of zoos, the Georgia Straight, a free
Vancouver weekly, reports:

Dr. Peter Crowcroft of the department of zoology at the University of
Texas is a former director of zoos. In a UBC lecture earlier sponsored
by the Vancouver Institute earlier this year, he said: "You cannot
overestimate the ignorance of the average person. We once did a very
interesting experiment. We had an empty pen with a barn at the back. We
left the barn door open and put up a sign that read: 'UNICORN. EXTINCT
DUE TO EDUCATION. FEEDS ON FLOWER PETALS. ATTRACTED TO VIRGINS.' Most
people that came along tried to peer in the open door, convinced that
the unicorn was hiding somewhere in the barn. Except for one little boy
who said to his father, 'But Daddy! There's no such thing.' To which
Daddy replied, 'Don't be stupid. Can't you read the sign?'"

[strumpet grrrl]

In article <3330284d....@nntp.netcruiser>, <cass...@pacific.com> wrote:
>On 18 Feb 1997 16:01:23 GMT, "Daniel England/Shaun Byrne"

>Leaders among both Afro-Americans (coloured people(?)) and Feminists are
>less than happy about homosexuals tugging on their coat tails and they
>have said so publicly.

i can't speak for african-american organizations (*coloured*?! let's
leave the fifties, please), as i really don't know that much about them,
but, as a feminist, i can tell you that you are dead wrong in your
statement about feminist organizations. nearly all feminist
organizations, including both mainstream ones such as the feminist majority
and now and also more radical wings such as the riot grrrls, support gay,
lesbian, and bi rights, and their leaders would be only too happy to tell
you that. once upon a time, on its foundation by betty friedan, the
national organization for women (now) did not admit lesbians, but that
has long since changed.

rachel
--
-------------------------- rwes...@sophia.smith.edu -------------------------
"And should I then presume? And how should I begin?" -- T.S. Eliot
----------------------- http://www.smith.edu/~rwestmor -----------------------

[dion...@infinet.com]

ang...@hotmail.com said:

}Grade 4....Social Studies: Students, you government guarantees you
}freedom of religion.

}Do you recall hearing anything said about your homosexual problem?

Yes. Grade 6. Social Studies. Mr. King. Third floor. Room 305.

I think it was The First Amendment. (Or don't you think that a secular
humanist can argue that his "religious belief" on the topic of
homosexuality are pertinent?)

Then there are the 9th and 10th Amendments, which basically give us the
ability to say that "simply because something isn't in the Constitution
doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist". (Whereupon the ball is placed
back in your court, and you'd do well to try to prove otherwise.)

Then we've got the 14th Amendment. (Something about treating everybody
equal. What a weird thing to pop into the Constitution... )

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

I am in costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. We look just like everybody else.

-- Wednesday, "The Addams Family"

[Eric Fierke]

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:41:17 GMT, 1...@...9 wrote:

>On 18 Feb 1997 16:26:48 GMT, "Daniel England/Shaun Byrne"
><s33...@student.uq.edu.au> scribed:
>
>>As a human being I have the right to choose for myself the life (especially
>>my sexual life) which I will lead.
>>
>>The whole discussion of should we/shouldn't we should not be looked at in a
>>"what is the circumstance now" manner, but in a "what should things be
>>like" way.
>>
>>Again and again the point of legal rights of coloured people (namely
>>"Negroes" in American history) and similar cases has been bought up because
>>it _is_, despite what most "homophobic" people might think, directly
>>comparable.
>
>
>Colin Powell, a well known blackman, respected by both blacks and whites
>alike, would disagree with you. To put it as simply as I can...He says
>"There is no comparison."

I would also consider Colin Powell to be more than a little
biased, but that's just me. OF course there is a comparison. The US
is about 12% black and about 10% gay (and personally, I do think that
figure is fairly accurate). It wasn't until VERY recently that
interracial marriages were allowed. there is still racial tension in
southern schools (I know, I went to one). The only difference is that
you can tell if a person is black or white before you talk to them.
You can't always do that with a gay man, bisexual, or lesbian.

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <5ede95$i...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
terry...@mail.utexas.edu (Terry Moore) writes:
> In article <01bc1daa$58299fe0$62676682@byrne>,
> "Daniel England/Shaun Byrne" <s33...@student.uq.edu.au> says:
>>
>>It has to do with discrimination because you seem to have taken the point
>>of view that people, due to their sexual interests/actions, should be
>>denied certain benefits available to other people.
>>
>
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> "SEEM to have taken"??????
>
>
> Terry at Lake Bastrop
>
>
> ******************************************************************

Gee, you've got the "playing dumb" schtick down pat, haven't you?

Then again, maybe you're not playing.

--
Conrad Sabatier http://www.neosoft.com/~conrads

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <5eedo4$j...@news1.infinet.com>,

dion...@infinet.com () writes:
> ang...@hotmail.com said:
>
> }P.S. The photo you have on the page you push is a "rat chaser". If you look as
> }bad as it appears I can understand why your queer...all women have minimum
> }limit on looks. You probably can't come close to jumping up and reaching even
> }the lowest one. The "boys" think you're a loser too, right?
>
> Oh Conrad! Whatever will you do? She thinks you've chosen to be gay.
> She's seen the pic and agrees that you probably should be. But still she
> chastizes you for being gay in the first place! Dear, oh dear! This is a
> dilemma worthy of jumping off of a tall building over!

Indeed! What to do? What to do?

I must admit, I *am* rather flattered that the darling dear took the time
to "check me out". So sorry to have disappointed her, though. Knew I
should have posted that "My Cock" picture instead.

> [ tune in for our next exciting enstallment, when we hear Beavus say
> "gnarly" ]

Huh-huh. Huh.

[Shawn Hicks]

thej...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Coronal <Wha...@Zone.com> wrote:

> >No. Sexuality is not a function of behavior. People can choose their
> >behavior, but not their orientation. I could put up a hetero facade if
> >I wanted to. I could go through the motions, even to the point of
> >marrying a woman and having sexual relations with her. But I would still
> >be gay, and that will never change, nor do I want it to.

> If you wish to be animal, go ahead....but don't act like you are a
> minority....it puts real minorities in a bad light.

Really? How? Could you describe it for us? I'd sure like to know
how my having an uncommon trait doesn't place me in a minority. I'd
be tickled to hear how the effect that trait has on the way society
treats me isn't comparable to other minorities.

> You are a queer
> because you are either sick evil or perverted....no other reason.

Well, which is it? Am I sick? Evil? or Perverted?

Professional medical associations pretty much agree I'm not sick.
I haven't pulled the wings off of flys or tried to make other
humans feel like unwanted animal trash so I can't be evil. And
if perverted means I'm fun in bed, well, I'll let you stick that
label on me.

--
========================================================
Shawn Hicks bali...@wizard.com
Las Vegas, NV, USA http://www.wizard.com/~balistik/

[Eric Fierke]

On 18 Feb 1997 15:54:06 GMT, "Daniel England/Shaun Byrne"
<s33...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:

>I hate this whole American way of defining "natural".
>
>Where the hell did you get it from?
>
>Sounds to me like there where some very sick and repressed people
>responsible for your laws!

Puritanism - the irrational, irreconsilable fear that someone,
somewhere out there is having fun.

[big...@mailmasher.com]

On 18 Feb 1997 16:26:48 GMT, "Daniel England/Shaun Byrne"
<s33...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:

>As a human being I have the right to choose for myself the life (especially
>my sexual life) which I will lead.
>
>The whole discussion of should we/shouldn't we should not be looked at in a
>"what is the circumstance now" manner, but in a "what should things be
>like" way.
>
>Again and again the point of legal rights of coloured people (namely
>"Negroes" in American history) and similar cases has been bought up because
>it _is_, despite what most "homophobic" people might think, directly
>comparable.
>

>Put yourself in the period in which African-Americans had no rights other
>than to be slaves of the Anglo-Americans (and the few others, if there were
>any). Even though these people were and are entitled to basic, fundamental
>HUMAN rights, they were denied them because of fear and power. Fear and
>Power.
>
>African-Americans always had the right to the rights they have now. They
>were simply denied them at one point in history. Which was WRONG.
>
>In the same way, people who choose to have sex with someone of the same sex
>and more than that, have a on-going relationship with a PERSON of the same
>sex are still entitled to BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
>
>I reiterate. A PERSON who CHOOSES OR OTHERWISE to BE HOMOSEXUAL is STILL a
>PERSON who is ENTITLED to FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
>
>Simple.
>
>Well, it would be if there wasn't a strong moral aversion. However,
>MORALITY and LEGALITY are SEPARATE issues.
>
>In Australia, Homosexuals are not requesting that the churches allow us to
>be married (thereby changing the morality of those churches) but for the
>legal right to marry under the state marriage system.
>
>Of course, given that right, a new church, with a new morality is free to
>offer "Gay" marriages. But we do not expect, nor want this for currently
>existing churches.
>
>How can I put this...We (as homosexual people however we may have come be)
>simply want the right to live our lives as who we are. We don't hurt
>anyone (I must add for some...without consent) and we don't want it all to
>happen overnight (I think...of course soon would be very good!).
>
>We simply want to be able to live without fear, with security and
>happiness, to feel human.
>

I disagree with little you have said above. My arguements are
specifically dealing with homosexuals and service in the Armed Forces,
not with everyday life. Although there is no ruling by the Supreme
court on the above things I think that except for in religion there
should be some legal consideration given to life partners. But this
has no bearing on my reasoning against open service. Speaking of my
personal feelings, to me the whole idea fo homosexuality is repulsive,
but I am not going to try to enforce my feelings on you. This is just
a forum for discussion. That discussion is about military service.
Legally speaking I think that the rights you spoke of above are coming
in the States as well eventually.

Now back to the arguement at hand.

In the almost every state in the States the practices involved in
homosexuality are ILLEGAL hence there is no way someone can say they
have a RIGHT (human or otherwise) to engage in them. It is possible to
serve openly on a legal basis now because of this. Any admitted
homosexual would have to be prosecuted based on the UCMJ.

But this is not my arguement. That does no one any good. Don't ask
don't tell is the answer. It wasn't a change from the status quo of
prefvious admonistrations except in name only. It just acknowledged
that homosexuals could serve if they keep their preferences secret.
This is ideal; most heterosexuals don't want to work with homosexuals
and this way they son't have to. At least not knowingly. In the
civilian sector that same qerson could quit in order to avoid this,
but in the military he has no such refuge. All that our current policy
is saying is, don't make the majority uncomfortable thus negatively
impacting on our ability to defend.

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <33312e5a....@nntp.netcruiser>,

1...@...9 writes:
> On 18 Feb 1997 16:26:48 GMT, "Daniel England/Shaun Byrne"

> <s33...@student.uq.edu.au> scribed:

>
>>Again and again the point of legal rights of coloured people (namely
>>"Negroes" in American history) and similar cases has been bought up because
>>it _is_, despite what most "homophobic" people might think, directly
>>comparable.
>

> Colin Powell, a well known blackman, respected by both blacks and whites
> alike, would disagree with you. To put it as simply as I can...He says
> "There is no comparison."

As far as I can tell, the only thing the above statement serves to show is
that even a well-educated black man, who himself has no doubt felt the
sting of racism, can be a bigot, too.

Now, what were you hoping we might get out of that?

[ soc.veterans removed from followups ]

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <330c9aab...@news.pipeline.com>,

big...@mailmasher.com writes:
>
> When the reaction of almost every heterosexual male in our society is
> akin to that of the reaction of a person to a snake or spider then
> it's not hatred or prejudice it's almost instinctual. It is almost a
> norm.

Oh, so then you guys really *are* afraid of us, huh?

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <01bc1da9$a256b040$62676682@byrne>,
"Daniel England/Shaun Byrne" <s33...@student.uq.edu.au> writes:
> Attacking someone's appearance is always a sign of being at a loss for
> better comments
>
> Grow up.

Now, now. Mustn't be too hard on the dear, sweet child. I'm certain this
was just her roundabout way of expressing her disappointment that a
stud-hunkola such as moi is unavailable to fill her "special" needs.

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <01bc1dab$81b88d20$62676682@byrne>,

"Daniel England/Shaun Byrne" <s33...@student.uq.edu.au> writes:
>

> In 10 years [!] when homosexuality is accepted, no male will have a
> problem with being approached sexually be another man because there will
> be no need for him to feel dirty or guilty or somehow made effeminate
> etc.

Boy, you sure are optimistic! :-)

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <332f242c....@nntp.netcruiser>,
cat...@mailmasher.com writes:
>
> One further question: After this teaching that you propose, would the
> homosexual in your scenerio feel perfectly comfortable if he were
> approached for the pupose of sexual intercourse, by a heterosexual
> woman?

There are appropriate and inappropriate ways of dealing with one's
discomfort at an unwelcome sexual advance. An appropriate way might be to
politely decline said advance with a simple "No, thank you. I'm very
flattered, but I'm really not interested, sorry". An inappropriate way
would be to smash one's cocktail glass across the face of one's admirer,
scream any number of insulting remarks at them, and then perhaps kick them
in the groin while inviting others to do the same.

It's a matter of civility, dear. Very simple, you see. Just ask Miss
Manners.

[Shawn Hicks]

usdackion@kzgt_net.com wrote:

> Neither taxpayers ("worthy" or not) nor anyone else for that matter, has a
> right to serve in the military. As a body military, all the services are
> charged with the defense of the Constitution of the United States...that is
> its sole duty and responsibility.

The military isn't immune from the Constitution it is supposed to
protect. There is no value in "protecting" a document on freedom
and equality with a military that is unwilling to reflect those
same ideals.

> It chooses it forces based on laws promulgated on behalf of the people, by the
> elected representatives of the People. It can (again, based on the laws
> mentioned) refuse to admit or retain anyone whose presence would inhibit its
> ability to advance legitimate military goals. Thereby, lessening its ability
> to perform its duty and fulfill it's responsibility.

It chooses its forces based on prejudice and whim without regard for
ability, in other words. The U.S. Military has shown no better reason
for denying equal treatment to homosexuals than the bigotry and
prejudice of the other soldiers. What they've said, in effect, is
that our military is not disciplined enough to survive the knowlege
that the soldier next to you might be homosexual. In light of that
discovery, our military is supposed to cease all effective soldiering
and imediately fall into disarray, presumeably as they beat the poor
homosexual into a pulp (or perhaps march off in a huff, hands on hips.)

Now that I've cleared away the military propoganda surrounding
homosexual soldiers, let me tell you something of the truth. The
majority of the prejudice against homosexuals lay not in the lower
ranks but in the higher command. The daily ground pounder or the
airman that loads bombs on planes could care less who the guy next
to him sleeps with. They may not know who in the common showers
is homosexual because they're too busy getting cleaned up to try
and see who might be staring a fraction of a second too long.
Which is quite fine because the homosexual soldier is too busy
getting clean to care much about some nervous straight boy. The
important thing to all the lower ranks is can the person next to
me get their job done?

The people around me knew I was gay. They figgured it out based
on how I behaved or the fact that I wasn't out boinking every
Korean whore in Suwon on pay day. I did my job and I did it well
and no one cared how queer I might be and no one treated me
poorly because of it. I partied with them, drank with them, had
breakfast with them, and shared showers with them.

> The military "fires" weapons...they "discharge" people.

They lay them off too but call it "early out."

[Coronal]

thej...@aol.com wrote:
> If you wish to be animal, go ahead....

How exactly is it that I act like an animal? You have no knowledge of
what
activities I engage in behind closed doors. If my behavior makes me an
"animal", then there are an awful lot of hets who are "animals" as well.

>but don't act like you are a
> minority....it puts real minorities in a bad light.

What exactly constitutes a "real minority"? My sexuality is an innate
thing,
like my height, hair and eye color.

> You are a queer
> because you are either sick evil or perverted....no other reason.

I am gay because that is how God made me.

[Conrad Sabatier]

In article <330b3397...@news.pipeline.com>,

big...@mailmasher.com writes:
>
> Now back to the arguement at hand.
>
> In the almost every state in the States the practices involved in
> homosexuality are ILLEGAL

<Ahem> Only when performed *by* homosexuals, it would seem.

> hence there is no way someone can say they
> have a RIGHT (human or otherwise) to engage in them.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

The fact that some legislative body of ignorant, oppressive, moral
hypocrites declares something illegal doesn't necessarily mean that one
has no right to do it. It only means one risks certain consequences,
namely, incurring the punitive wrath of the same ignorant, oppressive,
moral hypocrites who invoked such legislation in the first place.

Idiot.

[Ward Stewart]

dion...@infinet.com () wrote:

>ang...@hotmail.com said:

>}Grade 4....Social Studies: Students, you government guarantees you
>}freedom of religion.

>}Do you recall hearing anything said about your homosexual problem?

>Yes. Grade 6. Social Studies. Mr. King. Third floor. Room 305.

>I think it was The First Amendment. (Or don't you think that a secular
>humanist can argue that his "religious belief" on the topic of
>homosexuality are pertinent?)

>Then there are the 9th and 10th Amendments, which basically give us the
>ability to say that "simply because something isn't in the Constitution
>doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist". (Whereupon the ball is placed
>back in your court, and you'd do well to try to prove otherwise.)

>Then we've got the 14th Amendment. (Something about treating everybody
>equal. What a weird thing to pop into the Constitution... )

Well, you will admit that this equality thing is causing a
whole lot of trouble and confusion -- the government has had
a long history of turmoil ever since it was started as one
or another group is suddenly discovered to be entitled to
*equal* status, *equal* protection of the law. Women,
Blacks, Jews, Catholics and now Gays.

Perhaps it would be best to remove the Jeffersonian nonsense
about our being equally endowed with rights -- it has caused
to much dissention.

ward

****************************************************

It must be noted that when the assignments were passed out,
The deity gave Michaelangelo the Sistine Chapel to paint
and Anita Bryant orange juice to peddle.

****************************************************

[Coronal]

ang...@hotmail.com wrote:
> P.S. The photo you have on the page you push is a "rat chaser". If you look as
> bad as it appears I can understand why your queer...all women have minimum
> limit on looks. You probably can't come close to jumping up and reaching even
> the lowest one. The "boys" think you're a loser too, right?

If you really are the kind of juvenile asshole who judges people on
their looks, then
you've got some major growing up to do.