Monday, May 21, 2007
The New York Times took a look at the big contentious gay issue in England of a few years ago -- whether or not openly gay individuals could serve in the military.
The arguments there, were pretty much the same as in the US. It was said that gay people openly serving would destroy unit cohesion, reduce morale, etc.
But that was seven years ago. And the moral conservatives lost that one. So what happened? Not much of anything. No decay, no lack of cohesion, no reduction in morale. It just didn’t happen.
No could find any problmes that arose out of this policy. So what does it mean?
Should we assume that the gay men and women of 2007 are vastly different from those of a few years ago? Is the reason there are no problems because homosexuals have changed?
No. What has changed is the views of the people who serve. Gay men and women today are not vastly different of those who came of age in the 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s, etc. So if there are no problems today it is because the social views of straight personnel has changed.
This ought to be encouraging to gay people. Whether the Religious Right nut cases like it or not they have lost the culture wars. They might as well run up the white flag and retreat to their revival tents. No one is going back into the closet. Even polls of evangelical Christians show that a good number of them are no longer anti-gay and that younger evangelicals simply don’t share the obsession about homosexuality that gripped the leaders of the Religious Right.
All along the reality was that the problem was not created by the gay man or lesbian. It was created by the bigot. It was prejudice that was always the problem.
There is a downside to this as I see it. Previously homosexual exempted one from compulsory military service as well. And I just don't trust the government enough to say they won't coerce people into joining the military involuntarily (slavery) if they get involved in another stupid war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment