RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/15/2008

It's tough when all your arguments rely on bias

by Jeremy Hooper

DonnellyYa know, we sometimes have a tough time telling whether our opposition is making a case for their side or our own. To see what we mean, check out the following passage that was given to the National Review Online by one of the nation's most prominent foes of a gay-inclusive military, Elaine Donelly:


Forced cultural change in the military would be far more radical because the institution is a prime venue for social engineering. If the armed forces are ordered to accommodate professed homosexuals, military officials and members from the Joint Chiefs on down will have to obey civilian orders to make the program "work." Strategies for "success" would include equal housing and social status for same-sex couples, and "sensitivity training" to enforce acceptance of known homosexuals in the ranks. But the consequences of mandatory social engineering would not stop there.

If our most respected government organization is forced to adopt and promote a San Francisco-style "civil rights" agenda, other institutions of American life eventually would have to do the same. Schools, marriage license bureaus, churches, and private citizens would have difficulty explaining why their concerns are more compelling than objections stated previously by the military.

Wow, if the ban in gays goes bye bye, officials will have to respect gay people? Equal housing and social status will be demanded for gay people? The military might be given courses in the need to be more tolerant? The military will have to cull their ideas on gays' civil rights from an accepting city like San Francisco rather than one in which gay residents cower in fear? And if all this happens, other public institutions will also have to provide equal access to ALL of their citizens (and not just the hetero ones)? Neat!

Gee, Elaine, If HRC should ever create a "Director of Unwittingly Helping Gays By Pointing Out Just How Unequally The Are Currently Treated" position, then you are in like Flynn, my dear!!

Who Will Confront the “LGBT Left?” [NRO]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

The U.S. armed forces are interesting when you consider that they are a very integrative force. Race doesn't matter, and the barriers for women have been knocked down too.

So why the hell not allow gay people to serve openly should they wish to do so? It makes no sense otherwise.

Posted by: Tony P | Feb 15, 2008 6:45:15 PM

Social Engineering? Check.

San-Francisco Style? Check.

Cultural change? Check.

It's Mad Libs, Bigot Edition.

Posted by: Mike C | Feb 16, 2008 3:51:45 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails