Heh, Gene. Ain't that the way, though. Sometimes I think Cain just represents the worst form of tokenism, 'You can be a minority or a woman if you say the extreme right things
Originally posted by newarts I doubt the basic reason was as general as to suppress equal rights; rather the basic reason was a natural conservative fear of disrupting unit integrity by romantic entanglements.
In the examples you gave are committed relationships permitted within a unit? Can a husband and wife serve in the same UK or Israeli platoon?
Please don't assume that I'm opposed to gays openly serving - I'm not opposed.
Similarly, I doubt that committed couples serving in the same unit would cause far fewer problems than imagined - but the natural conservative view would be to not run the risk.
I think a lot of this 'natural conservative view, by the way, is based on the rather defamatory notion that 'LGBT people are indiscriminately sexual' ...'So therefore they need to be closeted and treated unfairly... Cause if you don't they'll end up wanting to have sex with the nearest same-sex person.'
The notion itself is kind of rooted in bigotry, and it overlooks some obvious things about *being* among the LGBT population: a) We're quite used to living among people we may be attracted to in a fairly sex-segregated society, and actually we're a lot better at not-having sex with people than some may lead you to believe,
(Or leering or whatever.) and b) We're still a numerical minority, y'know. The odds of just happening to actually have chemistry with one of the few others in any given smallish group like a graduating class or a military unit just *aren't that big.* Imagine, for a numerical analogy, you were only compatible with redheads. Odds are there's going to be four or five of them out of any hundred people.... What's the likelihood you're actually going to be *interested* in the few redheads at work, y'know? People tend to just ignore that.
But, actually, just try walking around and ask yourself of the next four red-haired people you see out there, 'What's the actual likelihood we'd fall in love or want to have sex with each other?' (Whether or not they'd otherwise be your type or a sex you would be interested in, : the point here actually is the numbers.
Also, factors like, 'I'm already in a relationship/would I cheat,/I'm in mourning/more focused on my career count, too: LGBT people have all these kinds of factors just as often as straights. ) You might see it's that much less bloody likely that any two LGB people in a unit would connect that way.
Hec, I'm *bi* and I don't think I ever dated anyone from high school or work, (My college was kinda small-city sized, so I don't tend to count that.) .It just doesn't happen that often.
..And I just don't see any reason for this 'concern' that LGBT people are somehow more likely to break fraternization rules than straights. (Maybe less, taken individually: it seems to be more of a *straight male* notion in society that close quarters or states of undress with someone of a generally-desired sex ....is automatically a potentially-sexual situation.)
The real issue is that conservatives want to play to a conservative 'base' by doing anything detrimental to LGBT people's rights and dignity they can, and fear 'punishment at the polls' or loss of 'moralistic standing' if they don't. When was the last time they said or did, or even let slide... anything *benign* towards us, anyway? They're screaming about the budget one minute, and the next wanting to spend more government millions to try and *roll back* DADT repeal. Even though their 'concerns' have long since been shown to be unfounded by many militaries in the world.
Cause, yeah, them being 'Concerned' about the 'Risk' that LGB people can't control ourselves or something, is just saying, 'Well, I'm just 'concerned' that you people are innately rapacious and immoral/undisciplined, etc.' What would you call that? Oh, right, their prejudice.