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 »

07/13/2009

Conservs serving up military 'meat market' angle; this writer's never been happier to be vegetarian

by Jeremy Hooper

If a soldier violates another in a way that goes beyond the spirit and nature of the armed forces, then the offending party will be dealt with. Obviously. It is an institution defined by rules, and nobody is going to tolerate conduct that goes beyond the boundaries of discipline.

But since gay panic is the only card that the inevitably losing backers of a discriminatory armed forces have left to play, fear of a military in which gays are free to grab asses and engage in verbal harassment is the flawed, offensive angle they are continuing to work. It's exactly what conservative columnist Penna Dexter does in a new Christian Post commentary:

Secretary Gates floated a situation in which he'd like to make the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy "less restrictive." He said, "... we're given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted." But, to give the "jilted" party a break completely violates the spirit of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If someone has been jilted, they haven't exactly kept their homosexuality under wraps. A member of the military who is the object of an unwanted advance and complains to a superior, should, under current law, expect a remedy. But Gates wondered to reporters, "If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?"

Under the current law, it does. But, in this hypothetical Gates military, the homosexual hitting on another soldier becomes the victim. The one who outs him is the bad guy. If the young men and women serving our country have no recourse against unwanted homosexual advances, trust and unit cohesion will be broken. Fewer young people will volunteer for military service. Or their parents will refuse to send them.

Don't Weaken Don't Ask,Don't Tell [Christian Post]

The message: That gays are innately unable to control their desires, so the army will inevitably have to become a sex-charged free-for-all, the likes of which will scare the poor heteros (the only true American patriots, dontcha know?) from risking their lives to defend Uncle Sam. Or, put more simply: FEAR DA GAY!

Oh what a thoroughly noble fight these conserv-adets lead.

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


Your thoughts

The flaw in this is thinking that a gay service member would only be interested in another service member. I would venture to guess that to a very high percentage most service members (straight, gay, male and female) have relationships with those outside of the service. The jilted lover in the hypothetical scenario would most likely be a civilian.

And that last line is truly laughable. It is my understanding that the military only accepts adults as members. I didn't realize they needed permission from a parent.

Posted by: SammySeattle | Jul 13, 2009 5:03:11 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails