I agree. The question should not be asked. The problem is in the 'Don't Tell' half of the issue. It also covers "Don't get caught."
Many things should never have been an issue. But somebody had to go and say because skin colors were not like theirs, it was an issue. Somebody went and said, you don't worship like I do it's an issue. In this case, somebody has said, you don't have sex like I do, it's an ISSUE.
It's not a question that needs to be asked but it seems to some, it's an issue that will get a person fired, kicked out and not allowed to continue in a job they've proven to be able to do. So...
It's an issue.
There are minds that will never be changed. It's always like that in prejudice. People rationalize and quote 'facts' and claim the moral high ground. Not pointing fingers, not talking only about the homosexuality issue. But in the end, as a society we always seem to look back and wonder how the hell anybody could have defended the policy.
I understand your point here. What I don't understand is why a person would be fired, kicked out, or not allowed to continue in a job under DADT. As I said before, thousands of gay people ARE serving in the military, and are NOT fired for being gay. It is prohibited even to ask about their private sexuality. How is it an issue if they don't make it an issue?
I also wonder if the potential for conflict and disruption is the same in all countries and cultures. (And admittedly I'm not equipped to say much about this aspect, since I don't know how sexual behavior plays out in a range of countries.) Maybe in some places it just doesn't turn into a disruptive social-change campaign.
But in some countries, there's an aggressive sex-rebel movement, deliberately provocative, which targets and tries to break individuals and institutions who find their behavior objectionable.
Such activist organizations have repeatedly forced the closure of adoption agencies which wouldn't supply children to gay couples; sued dating services which wouldn't reconfigure themselves to accommodate gay pairing (when there are hundreds of gay dating services they could choose from); targeted, selected and sued church-owned facilities which wouldn't host gay wedding receptions, brought legal charges against printers or photographers who wouldn't produce gay-promotional materials; publically pressured people who wouldn't actually join in celebrating Gay Pride --- it goes on and on. In some countries (Canada, England, and I think in Norway) they've persued, prosecuted, fined and jailed clergy for teaching the tenets of their religion.
None of this was "necessary" --- all of it was an aggressive and punitive campaign against anyone who put up any moral, social or ethical resistance to, or even refused to publically affirm, behavior they found objectionable.
Who would want to open the door to all this nonsense in the military?
Abandoning DADT in some other countries might not lead to a concerted campaign of provocation against traditional moral people. But one can confidently predict that's just what would happen in a military setting--- that is, in the USA, under today's political conditions--- as I argue here.