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.
Mrs Don-o you bring up some interesting and valid points.
And admittedly, I don’t personally like some of the actions that have been taken. Particularly around the adoption area. But those personal reservations have nothing whatever to do with the gay aspect.
Liberty is not and has never been perfect, pretty or comfortable to everyone. Other cultures are just that, other. In Europe gays serve openly without problem, but in other places they are stoned to death upon discovery. It is not pertinent to our question of acceptance or rejection of openly homosexual individuals in the United States military.
I don’t much care about disruption. It was very much a disruption to our society to integrate the black and white skinned humans. Still is in many areas, as the basic human natural desire for ‘revenge’ fanned by some for their own gain playing out culturally everyday in America.
The alternative is to repress a minority while claiming a free society and I will never agree that it’s a better idea.
I will stand with anyone here to take steps to prevent individual acts of public obscenity or child abuse or harm. But I will not condone the targeting of a group of people for individual acts.