I've been hearing so many arguments against repealing DADT of late, and the arguments are uniformly stupid and ignore the fact that GAYS, BISEXUALS AND LESBIANS ARE ALREADY SERVING IN THE MILITARY. Most of the arguments come from men who are terrified by the idea that another man might find them attractive and put the moves on them, despite patient retorts from gay men pointing out that even if DADT was repealed, fraternization would still be illegal in the armed forces, so the idiots have very little to worry about.
What's clear is that logic has nothing to do with it. For a lot of men, being a man seems to involve having someone around to be more of a man than. (Most of the bigots don't like women being in the military, either. Quite a few don't like minorities being in there. They seem to have sex, sexual orientation, color and national origin very mixed up with what it means to be a good man and a good soldier. They don't seem to understand when people point out that being a good and decorated soldier has nothing to do with who you want to sleep with.)
I've also seen a lot of people arguing from Leviticus. I do wonder why the prohibition on homosexuality from Leviticus is the only prohibition that fundamentalists ever seem to focus on. Leviticus and Deuteronomy also contain these "abominations" which most people (please note that I say "most," not "all") simply don't consider any longer:
Tattoos: (Leviticus 19:28--"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you.")
Handicapped people going to church: (Leviticus 21:17-20--"Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken.")
Vegetable gardens with more than one kind of vegetable and mixed-blend fabrics: (Leviticus 19:19--"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.")
People born out of wedlock or descended, up to ten generations back, from those born out of wedlock, attending church: (Deuteronomy 23:2--"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.")
Genealogy is much more important to God than what kind of person you are, right?
Quite a lot of the opponents of the appeal make the cretinous claim that America has the finest military in the world (we don't) and that if we acknowledge that LGBT people are actually in the military (oh noes!), God will smite the country for doing something no other country has dared to do. (Most of them dropped that argument when I pointed out that not only had practically every Western nation cheerfully accepted the fact that LGBT people were in the military but allowed them to serve there without having to lie about it...and that the only countries still trying to ignore the existence of LGBT soldiers were dictatorships, ultra-conservative Muslim nations--and the United States. Doesn't really make us look good by comparison.)
I really don't understand why so many people are frightened by the notion of gays in the military. And that's really what's coming across to me. The bigotry seems to be a thin veneer over a mother lode of fear. And I have no idea what they're frightened of. LGBT people are just as capable of dying for their country--and dying bravely, valiantly and heroically--as heterosexual people are. What does sexual orientation have to do with whether or not people are good warriors?
I think the Theban Band would like to hear the opponents' answer.
Many groups recruit folks who are already fearful. Then they use fear of outsiders, "the unbelievers" etc. like a boot camp method to mold followers to do what they're told externally. Just break down their internal censors and moral sense until they'll do whatever you tell them. Control freaks love pushing them to the point of proof, where they're doing things that make no sense simply because you demand it. Leaders such as preachers of conservative congregations need somebody to point at when fearful people are looking to them for somewhere to dump their excess terror and achieve the bliss of the temporarily-reassured. I don't know, those of us with a bit of internal skeletal structure get really tired of jellyfish.
I remind myself of what a doctor once said to me when I was constantly having migraines: "This will pass." It will, one day, it will. I am an optimist at heart.
Our local, rather conservative, library here in the somewhat republican and red neck cowboy west (at least it always has been), has been displaying "Transgressions" face forward on its "new books" shelves in the lobby for weeks now. I smile every time I go by.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-03-12 11:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-12 12:17 pm (UTC)I've been hearing so many arguments against repealing DADT of late, and the arguments are uniformly stupid and ignore the fact that GAYS, BISEXUALS AND LESBIANS ARE ALREADY SERVING IN THE MILITARY. Most of the arguments come from men who are terrified by the idea that another man might find them attractive and put the moves on them, despite patient retorts from gay men pointing out that even if DADT was repealed, fraternization would still be illegal in the armed forces, so the idiots have very little to worry about.
What's clear is that logic has nothing to do with it. For a lot of men, being a man seems to involve having someone around to be more of a man than. (Most of the bigots don't like women being in the military, either. Quite a few don't like minorities being in there. They seem to have sex, sexual orientation, color and national origin very mixed up with what it means to be a good man and a good soldier. They don't seem to understand when people point out that being a good and decorated soldier has nothing to do with who you want to sleep with.)
I've also seen a lot of people arguing from Leviticus. I do wonder why the prohibition on homosexuality from Leviticus is the only prohibition that fundamentalists ever seem to focus on. Leviticus and Deuteronomy also contain these "abominations" which most people (please note that I say "most," not "all") simply don't consider any longer:
Tattoos: (Leviticus 19:28--"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you.")
Handicapped people going to church: (Leviticus 21:17-20--"Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken.")
Vegetable gardens with more than one kind of vegetable and mixed-blend fabrics: (Leviticus 19:19--"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.")
People born out of wedlock or descended, up to ten generations back, from those born out of wedlock, attending church: (Deuteronomy 23:2--"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.")
Genealogy is much more important to God than what kind of person you are, right?
Quite a lot of the opponents of the appeal make the cretinous claim that America has the finest military in the world (we don't) and that if we acknowledge that LGBT people are actually in the military (oh noes!), God will smite the country for doing something no other country has dared to do. (Most of them dropped that argument when I pointed out that not only had practically every Western nation cheerfully accepted the fact that LGBT people were in the military but allowed them to serve there without having to lie about it...and that the only countries still trying to ignore the existence of LGBT soldiers were dictatorships, ultra-conservative Muslim nations--and the United States. Doesn't really make us look good by comparison.)
I really don't understand why so many people are frightened by the notion of gays in the military. And that's really what's coming across to me. The bigotry seems to be a thin veneer over a mother lode of fear. And I have no idea what they're frightened of. LGBT people are just as capable of dying for their country--and dying bravely, valiantly and heroically--as heterosexual people are. What does sexual orientation have to do with whether or not people are good warriors?
I think the Theban Band would like to hear the opponents' answer.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-12 01:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-12 07:36 pm (UTC)Leaders such as preachers of conservative congregations need somebody to point at when fearful people are looking to them for somewhere to dump their excess terror and achieve the bliss of the temporarily-reassured.
I don't know, those of us with a bit of internal skeletal structure get really tired of jellyfish.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-12 05:02 pm (UTC)Our local, rather conservative, library here in the somewhat republican and red neck cowboy west (at least it always has been), has been displaying "Transgressions" face forward on its "new books" shelves in the lobby for weeks now. I smile every time I go by.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-12 05:33 pm (UTC):)
I will be a happy bunny when and if I ever see any of my books on shelves here in the UK, in bookshops or in libraries!