RECENT  POSTS:  » Congressional right wing's right-side-of-history whip count: 8–271 » NOM, Manhattan Declaration turn Unitarian's anti-slavery, anti-war into pro-discrimination anthem » Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera tease America's coming anti-gay street revolts » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy' » Legal profession made up of ideologues, demands legal ideologue » FRC's senior fellow for exporting/criminalizing gay people bemoan's discrimination's dwindling acceptance  

« 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