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


Gay seamen discharged? Tony will eat it up!

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 2-116 1In the latest edition of the Family Research Council's "Washington Update," Tony Perkins (or his ghostwriter) says the following about those gays who wish to serve their country (highlighting is ours):

Today's Washington Times features a front-page story (link) on statistics showing that discharges from the armed services because of homosexuality have declined as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued. Activists who are pushing for the full acceptance of homosexual behavior in the military say that it shows that the military needs homosexual service members and cannot afford to discharge them in time of war. But that is not the only possible interpretation of the numbers. It may simply be that there are fewer homosexuals illicitly serving in the military now than there were in the 1990's. Homosexuals may simply not be enlisting in the military, either because we are at war or because they have come to realize that the statute which excludes them from military service will continue to be enforced. The Clinton compromise called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has given rise to a myth that homosexuals are "allowed" to serve in the military, just not "openly." But statutory law excludes them altogether. The reason was illustrated last summer by the little-reported story of a homosexual soldier at Fort Bragg who infected his male civilian lover with HIV. Does discharging service members for homosexuality waste military resources? Certainly--and homosexuals are to blame for illegally enlisting in the first place.

"Homosexuals are to blame for illegally enlisting"?!?  Can we talk for a second about just how inhumane and disturbing that statement is?!!?  For even if you find gays hell-bound, diseased freaks unfit for existence, how can you even begin to claim that they are out of line when they beg to differ?!   How can you not see that they might want to stand up for the "radical" notion that THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS DESERVING OF FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT!  How can you in good conscience tell a qualified, tax-paying, legal citizen that they are wrong for enlisting?  And again -- even if you oppose gays on socio-politco-religo grounds, what gives you the right to completely ignore the "DADT" compromise? It is official (albeit worng-headed) policy!

What Tony (or ghostwriter) is saying is that gays should not only abide by the offensive "DADT" policy, but also the more antiquated full gay bans (which DADT was meant to somewhat bring up to snuff).  And then he unwarrantedly throws in an isolated HIV case to somehow embolden his case?!  BY WHAT GROUNDS?  It's true that the Fort Bragg soldier was found to have infected a 17-year-old with HIV -- but it had nothing to do with him being in the army!  It could have happened in the same way if he was a plumber.  And that  Tony even tries to make the connection only highlights just how mouth-foamingly eager his side is to not only fight gays on civil grounds, but also to rob them of all morality! 

What's the reason for the decline in gay discharges?  Well, we're not even going to weigh in on that one, as that is not the primary issue. The issue for us is that such is even still a possibility in 2008!  The government is harming our armed forces by preventing qualified individuals from entering or booting those same individuals once their truths are discovered.  But even more than that, folks like Tony Perkins are harming American freedom, democracy, and the good name of the human race by fostering an environment wherein decent people are brutally shunned simply for living their actualities!

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Enforce? [FRC]

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

Your thoughts

I swear Perkins and his ilk would have us chained up in prison, getting electric shock treatments. Oh wait ... that's already happened, for decades. I wonder if he's seen Bill Clinton's latest comments on how DADT was supposed to work, implying gay men and women could only not "be gay" in uniform. Ugh ... typing that just gave me a headache.

Posted by: Shane | Jan 22, 2008 11:36:54 AM

The title was plain naughty!

Posted by: Lucrece | Jan 22, 2008 1:31:43 PM

I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about, Lucrece. ;-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 22, 2008 1:35:26 PM

Funny how these dolts like to take one case and tar all gays with this. Ok, if such reasoning is all that's needed than heterosexuals need to be condemned en masse for the following:

HIV+ man having sex with 12 men

NY HIV+ man had sex with 28 women, infecting 9

Another HIV+ scumbag who infected multiple women, including underage teens

Now all of this was from a quick Google search, imagine what one could find if they really spent time at it? FRC is playing a really stupid game with all of this.

Posted by: John | Jan 22, 2008 1:43:43 PM

That was an Arrested Development worthy title. Didn't think you had it in you!

Posted by: Brandon H | Jan 23, 2008 3:44:24 AM

Brandon: Subtle bawdiness is sort of a forte around here. Much better than overt displays.

One of my all-time favs, from a post revolving around Americans For Truth's discussion of rim jobs:

"Fitting topic for them, as they do wish to 'lick the whole' of the gay movement"

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 23, 2008 7:07:49 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails