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


Matt's baseless rhetoric: Destined to leave him base-less

by Jeremy Hooper

MAtt-Barber-punchingThe reliably unhinged, hyperactively hyperbolic Matt Barber is at it yet again:

Most are unaware that during the Revolutionary War George Washington was a staunch advocate for allowing "gays" in the military. In fact, he boldly commissioned the little-known "Fabulous Pink Brigade," which once infiltrated a British camp and – while the redcoats slept – covertly redecorated in eye-popping pastels.

No, although Washington was a revolutionary, he wasn't a radical. The idea of open homosexuality within our armed services has long been considered preposterous.

Washington wisely understood that to allow men among the ranks who sodomized other men would necessarily distract from the mission at hand, disrupt unit cohesion, and damage the morale of non-sodomy-disposed soldiers forced to sleep and bathe alongside those so inclined. It's understandably disquieting to wonder whether your foxhole buddy "has your back" or wants to rub it.

'Gays' in the military - bad idea then, bad idea now [ONN]

And of course we, as per usual, are disgusted by his bullish, intimidatory, lowbrow takes on the so-called "culture war." But if you journey over to One News Now where this piece (and what a piece it is) is posted, you will see that we are not the only ones. It seems that even many social conservatives are sick and tired of this professional bully's retroactive/radioactive rhetoric:

Picture 10-129
Picture 11-131
Picture 12-95
Picture 13-88

The professional 'mo foes have overplayed their hands and people are really starting to realize it. It's a beautiful transition to witness.

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

Your thoughts

I still say that Barber's anecdote is not true. Where was he with this anecdote until now? Since when have religious right members not taken advantage of such a juicy tidbit as a personal story as to how gays in the military is a bad idea?

Where was Barber and this story when Elaine Donnelly got destroyed in front of Congress. The best she could do was an anecdote from the early 1970s. Barber's story is fishy at best.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Jun 29, 2009 5:58:01 PM

How did Matt Barber acheive the status of a pundit taken seriously by the right? Isn't he just an ex pro-wrestler?
Or is simply as stupid as one?

Posted by: Bill S | Jun 29, 2009 6:00:12 PM

Like this one too. Really up-to-date and quotes relevant statistic.
"In the deadly game of war it's dangerously irresponsible to place extreme social ideology above national security." I absolutely agree. Given that polls consistently show over 70% of Americans support allowing homosexuals to serve in the military without having to pretend their significant other doesn't exist, to bend over backward for social conservatives' extreme ideology by dismissing good soldiers with skills vital to our nation's safety and security is the height of recklessness and puts our country in peril."

But I sitll want to know why people considered intelligent, brave, and well-trained enough for us to send them to other countries to kill people for us ... are not mature enough to make advances to 'appropriate' people and turn down any advances they wish to. Why?

Posted by: LOrion | Jun 29, 2009 6:18:28 PM

As someone who's lived in a country that has allowed gay people in the military for about a decade now (something like that, anyway), these arguments do bring back some memories of what our wingnuts were saying on the subject when it was news. Of course, none of these terrible rises in hot gay sex came to pass - since people who are going to commit sexual assault don't really care about such piffling things as "laws". Which is, by the way, what gun fanciers say about gun crime.

Also, it's another classic incident of "oh no, my delicious butt-cakes must be that irresistible to a homofag that they literally would not be able to stop themselves!" How does he shave himself without a mirror in the house?

Posted by: Celia | Jun 29, 2009 7:03:59 PM

"... to allow men among the ranks who sodomized other men would necessarily distract from the mission at hand, disrupt unit cohesion, and damage the morale ..."

These jackasses always ignore the fact that gay men and women ARE currently serving in EVERY branch of the military. DADT doesn't keep gays from serving, it just forces them to LIE about it. So, if Fatt Barber does believe his lies, then he should be actively arguing for the repeal of DADT, and in favor of something that doesn't allow gays to serve at all.

He may simply be too stupid to see the distinction. Either that, or he is lying through his ass, hoping that everyone who reads his drivel IS stupid enough to think that it makes any sense.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jun 29, 2009 8:52:56 PM

Not only is Mr. Barber a crass and vindictive man, but he is historically wrong. He should read up on Wilhelm Von Steuben, a man sought after by George Washington. Prussian military genius Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben arrived at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in the company of a handsome 17-year-old secretary. Fearing prosecution for alleged indiscretions with young men back in Prussia, Steuben had signed on to train George Washington's ragtag Continental Army. Most historians consider his success at this task a major factor in the American victory.

So Mr. Barber, Washington was not opposed to gay men in the military. He wasn't even neutral about it. He was most definitely in favor of gays in the military. Moreover, the freedom you have to spout all your anti-gay bile can be largely attributed to a gay man at Valley Forge who helped Washington in training the troops!

Posted by: Steve | Jun 29, 2009 11:55:11 PM

Jeremy, it is very encouraging to read those comments! I'm even amazed that they made it through to get posted, but there were obviously too many to weed them all out. I hope this means that sometime soon, one will have to be more than anti-gay to make a living as a conservative Christian writer.

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Jun 30, 2009 8:52:47 PM

Unlike Matt, some of his readers really do think that they "love the sinner". They can easily be deceived by lies, distortions, and half-truths. But when they read obvious mockery, cruelty, and blatant bigotry, that conflicts with their idea that are supposed to "love" gays (even while deny civil rights and equality).

Matt crossed the line to the point that even those inclined to agree with him saw the hate and contempt.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Jul 1, 2009 4:38:11 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails