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.
What part of NO OPEN BUGGERY dont you understand?
I am still concerned that abandoning DADT is abandoning an approach that works, and that for over a decade has facilitated thousands of gay military to serve their country without problems.
Why mess with success?
Especially when abandoning the successful DADT approach would be, I predict, the opening wedge: not for the present gays in the military, who are serving honorably, but for the activist groups. Part of their larger strategy to use courts and the inherently authoritarian structure of the military to achieve political goals they have not been able to achieve by the democratic process.
I thank you again for a good discussion.