Controversy Alert!!
 |
| Attention Enemies of the United States of America: Beware of this man, on a unicorn, with a rifle ... SHOOTING RAINBOWS!!. |
In an act of stunning contempt for voters, members of the lame duck Congress last week threw out the military’s ban on openly gay soldiers.
How dare they take a step to remove one small hurdle to equality in such a completely legal and constitutionally allowable manner. How contemptuous!! What's next, will they extend tax cuts or ratify a nuclear arms treaty?
Poking their collective thumb in the eye of an electorate which last month decisively turned many of them out of office, the Congress voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a longstanding compromise on homosexuals serving in the military.
Apparently, the bill was sponsored by Congressmen M. Howard, L. Fine and C. Howard. Are we really calling this thing a compromise? Don't both parties have to give something up for it to qualify? So, in exchange for being able to join our exclusive club that will allow you to die and kill for your country, all you have to do is give up your identity. Oh, and if you slip up or somebody decides they don't like you and blows your cover, we get to kick you out and and end your career.
The action of this lame duck House is like punching the boss between the time you get fired and when you clean out your desk. It is like spilling your drink on your fiancé just after she dumps you a week before the wedding.
Except that it's not. Also, are we the only ones confused by when exactly the drink is getting spilled on the fiance in that scenario? We need a Venn Diagram to figure it out.
The Senate voted 65 to 31 to repeal DADT, which permitted homosexual soldiers to serve as long as they did not advertise their sexual practices.
Does that mean they can post about it on The Facebook to their 35 friends? That's how we advertise!!
Many opponents of overturning DADT have predicted that recruitment and re-enlistments will suffer ... said Sen. John McCain ... “But don’t think there won’t be a great cost.”
So, we'll be taking away guns and hero status from people who are so goddamn uncomfortable with gays that they'd completely abandon their position and just go home? Very costly.
As everyone knows (everyone, that is, except perhaps this Congress), voters dealt a decisive rebuke to House Democrats a few short weeks ago ... There is no doubt that much of the anger directed at the Democrats was the result of irresponsible fiscal policies that have produced an enormous budget deficit. In that sense, this was an election about economics.
And that's relevant, how?
But Republicans, and conservatives, are more than just economic creatures. Most are also conservatives on social policy, from abortion to gay rights. Although many voters chose Republicans for economic reasons, a substantial number voted Republican because they also favor conservative social policies.
Oh, we see, it's relevant so you can make a Favrian-Ego sized leap to this bullshit argument. Gotcha. So, the anti-incumbent, anti-whatever sentiment, admittedly fueled by the economic downturn, that lead to a bunch of Democrats losing their jobs means that its some referendum of gay rights? What about the representatives elected two years ago on a platform, which was in part based on repealing DADT?
DADT doesn’t bar gays from serving in the military, even though homosexual conduct remains against military regulations. As a concession, the conduct is overlooked, just so long as that conduct is not paraded in front of everyone.
Oh well, when you put it that way.
DADT merely asks that the military not adopt the radical gay rights agenda, one in which “openly” gay soldiers can force everyone to accept their lifestyle. But as a result of the chutzpah of this lame duck Congress, that radical agenda is about to become official military policy.
Other items feared by this guy to be on the "Radical Gay Agenda":
1. Electing Lady Gaga as president, with "Ross The Intern" as her running mate;
2. Having cast of Glee record the country's official version of the National Anthem;
3. Declaring January 13th "Charles Nelson Reilly Day."
Seriously though, why does everyone think that every Paul Lynde and Ellen DeGeneres out there is going to run to join the army now? They're not and it has nothing to do with being gay. Military life sucks. Get yelled at, eat shitty food, leave my family all for the right to go to the desert and get shot at? Fabulous!!
Even apart from combat, for example, permitting gay soldiers to advertise their sexuality will disrupt unit cohesion. Just as women resist showering with men because of possible sexual overtones, heterosexual soldiers will find their privacy suddenly violated.
If you're comfortable having your dinkus out in front of a bunch of dudes, does it matter if one of them is openly gay? What exactly does that change?
Those members of the House and Senate who voted to overturn DADT did so after a steady drumbeat of left-wing propaganda. The media repeated the liberal assertion that allowing gays to serve openly was similar to integrating African-Americans into the military – a comparison that offends many blacks.
Ohh fuck you. What does that even mean? We're not trying to tell anyone how anyone should feel about being discriminated against but how African Americans feels about it is really irrelevant. It's just injecting race into the equation because it's something people are completely afraid to talk about. Either way, maybe it's the same, maybe it's not, but when exactly did discrimination become a competition? (If so, we have no idea who's winning but white people are certainly in last.)
Those who sought to overturn DADT also repeated that kicking openly gay soldiers out of the military would end the careers of untold numbers of dedicated soldiers ... The facts are somewhat different. According to the Department of Defense, 5,627 military personnel were discharged in 2008 for drug offences. The number discharged that year for being overweight was 4,555. Those discharged for getting pregnant numbered 2,353. And how many were discharged after they were “outed” for being gay? 634.
Ok, just so we're clear, something like 15,000 people were discharged for offenses which plainly hindered their ability to do their jobs? And we should feel bad for those people but not the 634 people who were outed?
Those supporting the repeal of DADT have also made much of surveys purporting to show support for overturning the ban – or at least, the tacit acceptance of ordinary soldiers for openly gay service members in their ranks ... But among Marines actively serving in combat ... the proportion of those who saw a negative effect skyrocketed to 57.5 percent – a margin of nearly seven to one.
This is our biggest problem with the arguments against the repeal. Since when do cater to the lowest common denominator? Just because the majority of people feel one way doesn't mean that's how it should be. It's that kind of thinking that puts Bristol Palin in the finals of "Dancing With the Stars." Majority rule is shit.
Those soldiers develop a genuine brotherhood toward each another – a bond that has nothing sexual in it. In fact, the only reason they can develop this strong bond is that there is no possibility that any part of the bond can ever turn sexual. (That is one reason why female soldiers are barred from combat.)
As we're about to find out, this dude is quite concerned with the non-sexual bonds between soldiers.
That bond helps keep these soldiers alive. Bound together in this non-sexual brotherhood, soldiers willingly fight, and die, for each other.
So, is the bond sexual or non-sexual?
Unfortunately, allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in combat would erode this non-sexual brotherhood by bringing in the possibility that the bond can, in some cases, turn sexual. Then, the bond so essential to fighting and surviving in combat will be destroyed.
WE GET IT!!! It's non-sexual. We'll say this once and for all. Attention dumb straight people: NOT ALL GAY MEN ARE TRYING TO FUCK YOU!! First, of all, you're probably unattractive. If no women want to have sex with you, what makes you think every gay guy wants to jump your bones? Secondly, you aren't gay and we're quite sure you let everyone know. Nobody is going to try to change your sexual preference, life isn't a Kevin Smith movie.
Finally, so what if the bond turned sexual? We have friends we'd fight for but, The Mrs, we'd give it all, we'd sacrifice. Don't tell us that's not worth dying for. We wouldn't be able to help it, there's nothing we'd want more. We'd fight, we'd lie, walk the wire, die, all that stuff. Basically, everything we'd do, we'd do it for her.
As you can imagine, the comments are plenty stupid and ridiculous. Unfortunately for anyone who stubbornly maintains faith in newspapers, most of them mirror what we saw in the actual article. Still, we found a few good ones to share with our faithful readers.
FairfieldFox
It may be time for Christian families to re-examine sending their sons to our war machine on moral grounds. First, morally, it isn't safe for the kids in the environment that's just been created and, secondly, our wars aren't "just". Our "elites" don't send their kids, but embroil OUR families in wars that are unjust and last for decades, now ... If they don't get Christian soldiers to fight their immoral wars, who will?
First, how does letting gays be gay change the "justness" of any of our wars? Secondly, you want to know who's going to fight the wars? The same people who always do, poor people who who get suckered by a free college education.
estowisdom
the "big deal" here is that the gays will not just passively serve. They will shove it in our face every opportunity they get . They will hurt morale and cause dissension, because that is what they do, when they don't get their pansy little way. The term ' "Rear Admiral" will have an entirely new meaning.
... if you know what he means!!!
slolane
In 1778 General Washington had Lt. G. F. Enslin drummed out of the Continental Army after being convicted of homosexual sodomy, for "abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes." Washington was a great man and a great general
Always good to get your social lessons from things that way or may not have happed 250 years ago.
usnya03
Gays who have served “honorably” in the service, knowing full well that practicing homosexuality was against military regulations have not been honorable. As to adhering to a Code of Conduct, I see little distinction between breaking that regulation and, let’s say, smoking pot on your own time, or any other of many acts against military regulations. Just because you don’t agree with the military regulation, or feel that it is unjust, or even discriminatory, doesn’t allow you to just break it. In doing so, you are considered to be behaving in a less than honorable manner. That is why, prior to this latest congressional action, any homosexual who joined the military, knowing full well what the military regulations stated, and engaged in secret or overt homosexual practice, cannot be described as serving honorably. So, please don’t describe practicing gay servicemen as serving honorably, because they have not.
You don't see the distinction between making the conscious decision to smoke pot in violation of military code and just being gay? Wow, you're a fucking asshole.
luvsewe
Females do not share showers with males, nor do they sleep together in shelter halves. Nor do they check each other thoroughly in the field for chiggers, leeches, and other nasties found in swamps and jungles. Sorry to be blunt, but that means bending over and spreading your cheeks so your buddy can make sure you don't have any harmful bugs, mites, etcetera in your nether regions where you can't check for yourself. I realize this is not common practice among every branch or MOS, but as I said, I'm just going by my experience.
Do you think this guy knows there are people he can talk to about these types of things and show them where the bad men touched him?
Finally, let's take a look a 6 (!!) comments by one single person with nothing going on in their life -melmcdowell. Keep in mind, these aren't even all of his comments, just the better ones.
melmcdowell
I question the moral character of anyone who endorses sodomy.
We question the sanity of anyone who goes on the Internet and writes that.
melmcdowell
The greatest military force on the planet has just been sodomized ... Once the Homonazis are in control of the military you can be sure they will attempt to enforce their orthodoxy my any means available.
If the "Homonazis" (ohh, scary word!!) take over will they at least get rid of that ugly camo look we keep trotting out there?
melmcdowell
I think you are making my case. This controversy is not so much about the right of homosexuals to commit their perversion as it is to shut up those who believe what they do is a perversion, to give sodomy a seal of approval, and to denigrate traditional Judeo-Christian values, i.e its homofacism.
Wouldn't it just be regular fascism? Of is that "Heterofascism"? Do we really need the "homo" added on? Does it matter that "homo" doesn't actually mean gay when used that way? Why can't we think of a fifth question?
melmcdowell
Compared to normal heterosexual males and females, male homosexuals are tremendously promiscuous. See http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02. If you don't think this increases the risk of disrupting military readiness, you are fooling yourself.
If you think your stats are at all based on fact, we have some business opportunities to discuss with you.
melmcdowell
I guess we will have to differ. I think you compromise your integrity when you put your penis up some guy's anus.
Not sure that's really a matter of integrity but we'll just have to agree to disagree.
melmcdowell
Now that fairy dust has been sprinkled on the military, I guess they will be expected to win their battles mounted on unicorns and firing rainbows from their rifles?
We would think that flying on fictional horned steeds would give our military a pretty significant tactical advantage on the battlefield. If we saw that and were getting shot at by rainbows we'd be pretty damn freaked out.
So, if you know someone by the name of Mel McDowell, please do us all a favor and give him an open hand slap to the ear like he's John Stossel.
No comments:
Post a Comment