…and this is a 
Tony Perkins, president of the Patriarchy Research Council (wait — they don't do any kind or research, so maybe Patriarchy Propaganda Council would be better) is very upset that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the US military might be repealed. This would cause terrible suffering for military chaplains, compromising their liberty to be bigots.
This means that all 1.4 million members of the U.S. military will be subject to sensitivity training intended to indoctrinate them into the myths of the homosexual movement: that people are born "gay" and cannot change and that homosexual conduct does no harm to the individual or to society.
Anyone who points to the mountain of evidence to the contrary - or merely expresses the personal conviction that sex should be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman - runs the risk of receiving a negative performance evaluation for failing to support the military's "equal opportunity policy" regarding "sexual orientation."
Oh, I believe you can change how people behave sexually, and this policy change won't change that at all. Of course, forcing people to act sexually in ways which bring them no joy is also a great way to cause deep misery. I just look at all the tightly puckered smarmy jiveweasels inhabiting right wing Christian think-tanks, for instance, and see a horde of frustrated, tightly-wound self-flagellators — it's no wonder they so look forward to an afterlife in their death-cult, because this one is giving them nothing but priggishness.
For no other offense than believing what all the great monotheistic religions have believed for all of history, some service members will be denied promotion, will be forced out of the service altogether, or will simply choose not to reenlist. Other citizens will choose not to join the military in the first place. The numbers lost will dwarf the numbers gained by opening the ranks to practicing homosexuals.
Those "great" monotheistic religions also teach that women are inferior, that slavery is a respectable institution, that to kill and be killed for your god is a virtue, that homosexuals are to be stoned to death. Don't try to tell me that because a centuries-old book of tribalism and superstition says something is so, it deserves respect. It does not. It has earned contempt and dissent.
These same kinds of bigoted remarks were made when the executive order to integrate blacks and whites in the military was made, which wasn't actually that long ago…before 1948, military units were segregated.
Many white Americans (especially Southerners) responded with visceral revulsion to the idea of close physical contact with blacks. Many also perceived racial integration as a profound affront to their sense of social order. Blacks, for their part, often harbored deep mistrust of whites and great sensitivity to any language or actions that might be construed as racial discrimination
So his holy book and ignorant superstitions are not cause to continue a policy of discrimination, we have a history of similar arguments being made and being proven wrong…what about his claim that this change in policy will drive out good god-fearin' gay-hatin' soldiers and chaplains?
Screw them. Let 'em go. We're better off without those fundagelical frauds in the military anyway. And just think how much this will hurt their efforts to infiltrate and take over our military forces!
And in case you're feeling some pity for good ol' boys with a hatred for gays who'll be forced to change their professions and leave a military career because they feel so deeply that the faggots need to be caged, don't. Martyrdom is a very Christian ideal.
Of course, they only like the pseudo-martyrdom of being compelled to tolerate others. Voluntarily quitting a career isn't quite a sacrifice on the scale that Matthew Shepard made, or comparable to the kind of persecution they've been perpetrating on gay citizens for a long, long time.
Oh, here's a site that promotes discrimination against gays. Take a look at this lovely argument:
We Must Protect Our Military
Our military exists to fight and win wars, not engage in radical social engineering. Forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault.
Hey, that sounds familiar — isn't that the same claim Muslims use for swaddling women up to protect them from the uncontrollable lusts of men? I guess the US is in big trouble — our soldiers are so weak and undisciplined that they'll simply lapse into gay orgies if ordered to exercise tolerance.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Brian
|
June 1, 2010 5:04 PM
Your rule that says we can't discriminating against gays is discrimination! WAAAAAAAAH
Posted by: Zeno
|
June 1, 2010 5:04 PM
Heh. PZ said "jiveweasels".
But I guess they are.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 1, 2010 5:06 PM
Anyone who points to the mountain of evidence to the contrary - or merely expresses the personal conviction that sex should be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman
Mountain of delusions more like.
I imagine him pointing to his "mountain" of evidence...
"look, right over there on that table! Don't you see that pile of evidence there?"
*looks*
"uh, you mean the candlestick?"
"NO, you idiot, that big pile of books and papers!"
*looks again*
"Not seeing it, sorry."
"..."
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 1, 2010 5:07 PM
This means that all 1.4 million members of the U.S. military will be subject to sensitivity training intended to indoctrinate them into the myths of the homosexual movement: that people are born "gay" and cannot change and that homosexual conduct does no harm to the individual or to society.
I know this will shock ol' Tony, but the DoD will just add a few words abut respecting sexual orientation to stand up talks and policies that also tell military members that blacks, Hispanics, Asians and women are human beings, and why it's wrong to hate on them.
Then again, he probably hates those affronts to bigot liberties as well.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 1, 2010 5:07 PM
fixed. Because the evidence goes in the reverse direction.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 1, 2010 5:09 PM
...oh, and please tell this is no relation to Marlon Perkins, just to set my mind at ease?
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 1, 2010 5:09 PM
Our military exists to fight and win wars, not engage in radical social engineering.
Wasn't this the gist of the racist response to Truman's desegregation of the military?
Posted by: Nebula99
|
June 1, 2010 5:11 PM
I sure hope this drives a few bigots out of the military. I occasionally wonder: if a bunch of Christofascists like the Hutaree were to become a serious threat, how much of the military would defend America and how much would defect? It's probably needless worry, but the concept of people who look forward to the world ending being trained in warfare is not one I deeply approve of.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 1, 2010 5:14 PM
"a horde of frustrated, tightly-puckered, smarmy, self-flagellating jiveweasels."
Now THAT'S a great description of these bugnutters!
right on!
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 1, 2010 5:19 PM
"Forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault."
Gee, when they think all that might happen to the menfolk, they suddenly get all concerned.
Posted by: crowepps
|
June 1, 2010 5:20 PM
I would hope that our career military would be people who are mentally healthy enough to be able to cope with knowing that people who are different than they exist and aren't to be feared just on that basis. If they cannot cope with that, how can they possibly succeed to sorting the allies from the enemies when sent to a foreign country just FULL of people who look, speak and act differently? Perhaps losing those rigid and paranoid individuals who need everybody to be Just Like Me might actually reduce atrocities.
Posted by: sudomabinusri
|
June 1, 2010 5:20 PM
Sexual assaults against women in the military already occur at a frightening rate. But I guess that wouldn't matter to asshoes like Perkins.
Posted by: Legion
|
June 1, 2010 5:27 PM
Tony Perkins? Is this the same guy who killed his mother and left her body in a rocking chair in a hotel he was running a few years back?
Posted by: Flatland Nautilus
|
June 1, 2010 5:27 PM
As a former Marine (reservist for the picky), I can't see how this can possibly hurt the military. Weed out the small minded homophobes and I bet you'll take a large chunk of people who think harassing brown people in other countries is okay because they believe in a different (albeit the same) god.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 1, 2010 5:31 PM
@12 Sure it would. It's confirmation that women shouldn't be in the military. In fact, if they were proper, real women, they'd be home pushing out as many babies as they can. As it is, they're just asking for it.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 1, 2010 5:34 PM
so; either women don't count as soldiers, or women don't count, period.what a privileged piece of shit.
Posted by: tsg
|
June 1, 2010 5:37 PM
"Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out."
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 1, 2010 5:39 PM
sudo #12: Sexual assaults against women in the military already occur at a frightening rate. But I guess that wouldn't matter to asshoes like Perkins.
You aren't even considering the sexual assault rate against men. Since we know that most female soldiers raped don't report, we can safely assume that almost no male soldiers raped report.
So we have a huge ??? here -- what is the sexual assault rate by males against males in the military currently? I doubt that ending DADT will increase that number -- if anything, it may decrease it by increasing the reporting rate (even though I'd expect that increase in reporting to be minimal).
So we have here the subtext -- that rape is a normal sexual practice by males, and not primarily a political act against politically weaker individuals which just happens to be expressed through a sexual act. Not surprising coming from a "patriarchy council" -- men are evil, therefore they should rule. Just piece of shit cheap fascists.
Is the "asshoes" freudian or intentional, by the way?
Posted by: subbie
|
June 1, 2010 5:44 PM
This, to me, is one of the more frustrating objections that godstapo types make. It usually results in both sides arguing about whether sexuality is a choice. (For the record, I don't believe it is.) But that's irrelevant. In many different contexts accommodations are required for other personal characteristics that are unarguably more malleable than sexuality; i.e. religion.
Chaplins already have to (or are supposed to) give counsel to people of other faiths. How is this any different?
Posted by: rn.massey
|
June 1, 2010 5:45 PM
...and this is why woman absolutely cannot be allowed in the military...
Oh...wait. Someone didn't pass that memo to my National Guards serving stepmother...or my Air Force serving aunt. Or any other female currently in uniform. And oddly enough, the barracks haven't turned into a non-stop orgy pit of sexual deviance (of course, barring the very serious issue of sexual assault which does need to be addressed).
What really bugs me about the "Oh noes, teh open military gays!" is the assumption, the bald faced assumption, that every homosexual male (cause these nitwits aren't even THINKING about lesbians unless it's some uniformed wank fantasy) is lusting for every human with a dick that they see, and the mere thought of even being glanced twice by another dude is just too much to bear. Most gay guys I know are a bit more discriminating. These pussies need to grow a pair and quit taking their cues from army men porn.
Then again, lets get pragmatic here. There will probably, if not already, be a case of male on male or female on female sexual harassment in the military (because like just about every other grouping of humans, you can find a few abusive jerks who happen to be homosexual). If assholes like Perkins really gave a damn about preventing sexual harassment and assault in the military, then let's hear what they have to say and what they're doing about the current cases of heterosexual assault first. Then they can apply that solution if/when their big ol' gay fear comes true.
Posted by: Aperçus désagréables
|
June 1, 2010 5:46 PM
I can't bring myself to feel sorry for people who kill other people. That includes, first and foremost those religious apologists for murder, the army chaplains. But it does not excuse gay members of the military. Anyone who is prepared to kill an 18 year old boy or girl (s)he doesn't even know has earned my sincerest contempt.
Posted by: tsg
|
June 1, 2010 5:50 PM
It's a red herring. But beyond that it's always annoyed me because it puts the equality proponents in the position of saying "they can't help being that way". There's nothing wrong with being that way. Whether or not it's a choice has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: yamipirogoeth
|
June 1, 2010 5:51 PM
Every single person I know who is active/reserve/retired military has NO problem with this what-so-ever. Why some rightwing nutjubs should get their panties in a twist in it makes me want to wrap both of my hands around their neck and wring'em til their blue in the face...see if the lack of oxygen might kill out the ignorant centers of their brain (and hopefully it's not the entire brain either)
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 1, 2010 5:52 PM
the
bald faced assumptionfervent hope, that everyhomosexual male (cause these nitwits aren't even THINKING about lesbians unless it's some uniformed wank fantasy)one, male and female, is lusting for every human with a dick that they seeFTFY
They think everyone is like them, wants what they want.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
June 1, 2010 5:56 PM
Patriarchy Research Council - Home of some slimy bigots.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
June 1, 2010 5:56 PM
I've never been in the military, but many friends and acquaintances have. From what I've heard, that particular bit of "personal conviction" isn't nearly as widespread as TP fantasizes it is.
And hey, if the uber-macho homophobes are too busy worrying about not dropping the soap in front of some queer brimming with unrestrainable fag lust, maybe they'll have less time to rape or harass the women they serve with.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 1, 2010 5:57 PM
Boofuckinghoo, cry me a river. Ah, go ahead, cry me a fucking flood. You're going to be dragged into the current century whether you like it or not, and if your religion can't keep up, why, I guess you'll have to leave it behind.
Posted by: Wednesday
|
June 1, 2010 5:58 PM
That site gives me the creeps. Their reasoning attempts to be official-sounding and scientific, but it's very clearly fear-mongering.
I can understand not allowing HIV-positive soldiers due to health reasons*, but those last four issues have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Whatsoever. Tying them to homosexuality is not only actively misleading, but deliberately glossing over these very real issues! These problems don't resolve themselves by excluding gays from the military, they need to be dealt with seperately and seriously.
*although the reason given appears to be more about 'gays = AIDS' than about health evalutions and required levels of physical fitness.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 1, 2010 5:58 PM
1. Who gives a flying fuck about the chaplains? Last I checked, there was no draft for military chaplains, either. And they're REQUIRED by the military to "minister" to all faiths, even ones that their particular denomination finds abhorrent. So. Who gives a flying fuck WHAT they think? Follow orders or get out. We can use the money from your salary to fund something important, like research into re-growing amputated limbs.
2. Stop conflating DESIRE with inability to CONTROL that desire. Otherwise, as pointed out, every woman who goes out of the house with or without her burqa on is just "asking for it."
Posted by: Newfie
|
June 1, 2010 6:01 PM
Religion: Societal cover to hate and discriminate... just like Jesus commanded us to do.
Posted by: rn.massey
|
June 1, 2010 6:06 PM
THIS.
You know what's really scary? The same fools that turn a blind eye or cast the wrong blame when woman are harassed, squeal like little bitches at the very thought that a man might treat them the same way they would treat a pretty girl on the street/at the bar/in the barracks.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
June 1, 2010 6:07 PM
I watched a program on IPTV (Idaho Public Tevlevision) last night that recounted the history of the Civilian Conservation Corps. The program included interviews with four men from different backgrounds, men who had worked for the CCC. To a man they all said that having to work and live with men from different races and cultures made them more tolerant. Some of these guys had never worked with black or hispanic men for example, (ditto for latinos who had never been equals in a work force white white men), but when circumstances forced them into work details together, they became better at managing disputes, and far better at appreciating the their fellow workers as men, as guys "just like me."
All of the interviewees also said that working with guys from different backgrounds than their own also paid off in their careers post-CCC.
Posted by: Big Ugly Jim
|
June 1, 2010 6:10 PM
In the words of Bill Hicks:
Now, I don't know how ya'all feel about it. Gays want to be in the military. Here's how I feel about it, alright? Anyone DUMB ENOUGH to want to be in the military should be allowed in. End of fucking story. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many pushups you can do, put on a helmet, go wait in that foxhole, we'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody.
http://dillsnapcogitation.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/bill-hicks-on-gays-in-the-military/
Posted by: Wednesday
|
June 1, 2010 6:14 PM
It seems there a few bad apples in any bunch, right near the top.
I am talking about Tony Perkins and his disgusting ilk.
Posted by: Givesgoodemail
|
June 1, 2010 6:17 PM
Yepper. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Blacks, then women, and now gays.
(I'm still looking for juicy quotes from those who ignorantly opposed racial integration in the military back in the '40s and '50s. Anyone run across any doozies?)
Posted by: Jaycubed
|
June 1, 2010 6:21 PM
"The numbers lost will dwarf the numbers gained by opening the ranks to practicing homosexuals."
I didn't know homosexuals practiced on dwarves.
And after all this time, you would think at least some homosexuals would finally figure it out and stop having to "practice".
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 1, 2010 6:24 PM
For crap's sake, this is almost the same exact argument that Catholic Charities used when marriage equality was being debated in DC.
WAH WAH WAH! We want our right to discriminate!
Evil fuckers.
Posted by: cafeeine
|
June 1, 2010 6:33 PM
I can't get over how often they seem personally threatened by gays. I can't help thinking that these
peopleassholesindividuals, whether straight of crypto-gay, have an inflated idea of themselves in particular. They think their bottom is so irresistible that if gays are allowed to be open about their inclination in society, that they will not be able to keep their hands off it.Posted by: Jaycubed
|
June 1, 2010 6:39 PM
Here’s how the Family Research Council envisions things going if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed: first, more straight soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be fellated in their sleep against their will. Then, commanders afraid of being labeled homophobes will refuse to do anything about it. Eventually, the straight service members will quit out of fear.
This is from God is for Suckers. The FRC link has been cut.
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2010/05/28/family-research-council/
Interesting fantasies those Family Research Council people have: dreams of being blown in bed.
And considering the problems the military has with retaining personnel (not against their will), perhaps nightly BJs would turn out to be a recruiting advantage.
Posted by: considertheteacosy
|
June 1, 2010 6:41 PM
I'm always quite impressed at the idea that people who have no problem hanging around in places where people want to kill them would be unable to deal with the possibility that maybe someone might be checking them out, every so often. Sounds like a fairly backwards set of priorities to me.
Posted by: humanizzm
|
June 1, 2010 6:44 PM
Christian:
"Forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects..."
Homosexual:
"well, considering that you are a disgusting fat slob of a racist redneck hillbilly with a cowboy-hat, I'm not so sure about the 'sexual' part, though I think I can bring myself to viewing you as some sort of object."
I'm ever again shocked by how far spread that ridiculous prejudice is that homosexuals will just fuck anything in reach as long as it's male. closeted wishthinking much?
I'm sorry, but chances are you aren't that attractive, so get over yourself.
Just think of them as having being female when it comes to sexual attraction - they have tastes and preferences just like any other human, and being a homophobic bigot will probably not add to your attractiveness.
Posted by: considertheteacosy
|
June 1, 2010 6:45 PM
Also, things like this always remind me of this Onion video.
Posted by: Legion
|
June 1, 2010 6:45 PM
"Blow All You Can Blow, in the Army"
Yeah, we can see that on a recruiting poster.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
June 1, 2010 6:57 PM
These people are so goddamn stupid. I’ve worked with gays several times, and every single time it quickly became a non-issue. I've never, ever had a problem with any gay guy bothering me or trying to seduce me. This is spite of the fact that more than a few times in my youth I was handsome enough to be mistaken for being gay myself! You make it clear that you’re straight, and that’s the end of it. Life goes on, and nobody cares.
In any cross section of people there’s bound to be a few annoying bad apples, but generally, in my experience, the biggest dicks, the ones who make you feel uncomfortable aren’t the gays, it’s the redneck swaggering homophobes who are obsessed with how fucking manly they are.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 1, 2010 6:57 PM
The bigots have it exactly backwards. When people can be OUT in the military—when you cannot be discharged for not being straight—then the good ol' boys will have to learn a little discipline before slapping another guy's ass or making homophobic jokes because they will be liable to be sued for sexual harassment. Right now it all gets hushed up by DADT, and the bigots are able to sexually harass (and probably do worse to) bisexual and gay people.
Posted by: beckysharper
|
June 1, 2010 7:00 PM
Maybe the answer is to issue burqas to all the fighting men?
Also, the way they argue that homosexuality is a "choice" or "lifestyle" or whatever is typical of their way of thinking. When religious fundamentalists don't like something, they want to deny its existence. They seriously believe that if no one knows about something, it doesn't exist. I guess it's a flip side of the coin to belief in a supernatural deity. A lot of the people who ask you if you've heard the good news about Jebus seriously think that you haven't!
Recently, a Muslim parent called to complain that I had been "teaching her son (Mohammed,natch) Catholicism" - in a non-denominational private school. I was teaching a unit about Renaissance Europe, which included a focus study of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Apparently, stating objective historical facts " Martin Luther challenged the power of the dominant religious suthority in Western Europe" is exactly the same as forcing a student to accept the doctrines of Roman Catholicism.
It's the same with teh ghey. If our novel in English includes a fictional gay character, this is equivalent to encouraging every student in the class to take a same-sex partner. In the minds of these religious folk, nearly every student will - just like we'll welcome the love of whatever god into our hearts if we only heard about him. It's very curious to me, their lack of imagination: "I'm a sheep who believes the first thing people tell me; therefore, everyone else is too."
Posted by: awchatterton
|
June 1, 2010 7:02 PM
The answer is clear. All male US defence force personnel are to wear the full burqa.
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 1, 2010 7:04 PM
It's funny (and sand) how terrified they are of the possibility they'll be treated, the way they treat women.
Posted by: richardrob
|
June 1, 2010 7:05 PM
I think there was once a military project to engineer a chemical weapon with exactly that effect.
Would it do any good to point to the large number of military forces in the world where gays serve openly with no negative impact.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 1, 2010 7:08 PM
Men in uniform? Orgies? Gays?
Hot damn, I'd pay to see that.
Posted by: Seraphiel
|
June 1, 2010 7:19 PM
Everyone I've ever heard who talks about gay people like Tony Perkins does, has turned out to be as gay as a pink house.
I'm just saying, it's kind of a pattern.
Posted by: Newfie
|
June 1, 2010 7:21 PM
It's a crazy world. The US is still holding out with Burma and Liberia. http://img2.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/900/570/16214621-map-nations.jpg
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
June 1, 2010 7:26 PM
The very existence of tax-paid chaplains in the military is a clear violation of the first amendment. If anybody wants to comfort religious soldiers, let them volunteer their services.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 1, 2010 7:29 PM
"Patriarchy Research Council"
Whats in a name? In this case, pretty much all you need to know about these homophobic gits.
They may as well call themselves "The Centre for Sexually Insecure, Bigoted Morons"
Lets see if I can complete the remainder of this sentiment:-
"Because, as we all know, only gay men could conceiveably sexually objectify their fellow human beings. Heterosexual rape? Its a myth, you know. Propogated by teh ebil librul media. Its a foul conspiracy against good, queer hatin', sky-fairy fearin' menfolk by those damned feminists. All they need is a good seein' to. They are women, so they must be gaggin' fur it really..."
I have no idea how cretinous bigots like the degenerate inmates of the Patriarchy Research Council conspire to be so far on the wrong side of history on this type of issue. I suppose that the old saying has some truth to it after all; there truly are none so blind as those that will not see.
Posted by: otrame
|
June 1, 2010 7:37 PM
What I want to know is where the blue hell anyone has gotten the idea that there are not already gays in the military. Hell's bells. I'd be totally unsurprised if the Marine Corps turns out to be about a third gay. All those young men needing to prove that the fact that they like other young men does not mean they are not men....
I personally know several people who used the get-out-of-the-army-free card when they got tired of it. While still in they had to be a little circumspect, but one told me that she was pretty sure that most of the people in her company, including the commander 1) were pretty sure she was gay; and 2) didn't give a shit.
Molly Ivins once wrote an editorial about the hysterical men who are afraid of being the focus of male sexual aggression. The title was "So, how does it feel, boys?" (or words to that effect).
Posted by: Quotidian Torture
|
June 1, 2010 7:43 PM
PZ, I think I love you.
No homo, though.
Well, maybe a little.
Posted by: James F
|
June 1, 2010 7:44 PM
I don't think Perkins is giving the military enough credit. Guys who dance and lip synch to Lady Gaga can't be too uptight.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 1, 2010 7:49 PM
Givesgoodemail @ 35: Check out Randy Shilt's "Conduct Unbecoming" which is a history of gays and lesbians in the military but I think it may mention the reaction to the racial integration of the military.
The sad thing about this is that gays and lesbians have been a part of military life throughout the history of our nation. The only difference being that one could get discharged solely for being discovered as a gay or lesbian even if you did an excellent job.
It's just fear that has kept this policy in place.
After serving in Vietnam and Eritrea in the Navy, I was discharged under a previous policy solely by coming out to a superior. And, to be honest, this has left a deep emotional scar.
Yes, I will be joyful when this policy (still in effect by the way) finally gets put in the dustbin of bad American discriminatory policies.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
June 1, 2010 7:54 PM
Paging Dr. Ayala. Given all the unscientific propaganda from this religious figure, we have to conclude that dear ol' Tony does not "properly" understand his own faith, right?
Posted by: KingUber
|
June 1, 2010 7:59 PM
Actually I'm in favor of bigots in the military, since they're likely to get KIA
Posted by: James F
|
June 1, 2010 8:07 PM
Flatland Nautilus #14 and Qwerty #58,
Thank you both for your service. And Qwerty, I hope that by the end of this year no one else will have to endure the indignity that you went through.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
June 1, 2010 8:07 PM
Oh, I was shocked at first, I thought PZ wrote "Jizzweasles".
Jiveweasles is funny too.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 1, 2010 8:17 PM
#35:
(I'm still looking for juicy quotes from those who ignorantly opposed racial integration in the military back in the '40s and '50s. Anyone run across any doozies?)
Ask and ye shall receive.
From Senator Richard Russell (D-GA),
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 1, 2010 8:17 PM
Christian Insights™ from Scott Lively, J.D., Th.D.:
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 1, 2010 8:21 PM
"Patriarchy Research Council"
Whats in a name? In this case, pretty much all you need to know about these homophobic gits.
Um... Their name is actually Family Research Council. Some of us call them what they really are, that's all.
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
June 1, 2010 8:21 PM
rn.massey #31:
This THIS is this'd.
I'm a straight man who is by no means particularly attractive (at least not IMO) but was once asked out by another man (or maybe I'm just saying that, because hey, this is the Interwebs ;).
It was flattering and that was simply that. Only later did I learn that I was supposed to be freaked the fuck out by the experience. As it is, it's not enough to warrant a Seinfeld episode. Sheesh.
Either the homophobes are afraid of being tempted into the gayness, or they are transferring their own fantasies of what-they'd-like-to-do-to-women (sans women's permission) onto the minds of gay men.
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
June 1, 2010 8:23 PM
DADT can't go soon enough for me. I'm just happy that the Dems have the balls to do the right thing.
But there's another major upside to getting rid of it that I hadn't even thought of before reading PZ's post: this is going to be a huge help to Mikey Weinstein's campaign against the Christian takeover of the military.
Let's encourage all those Baptist and Pentecostal chaplains to follow their consciences (or whatever passes for a conscience with these cretins), resign their commissions, and go home to prey on the civilian population. We have the freedom to run them off, whereas our troops don't.
And all those officers and NCO's who are religious nuts? They're going to screw up, guarandamnteed. Write 'em up, end their careers, and send 'em home.
Two birds with one stone!
Posted by: Wednesday
|
June 1, 2010 8:37 PM
#57 EXACTLY.
Posted by: bybelknap
|
June 1, 2010 8:51 PM
I think it would be a worthwhile investment to pay for someone to wait at the door to the offices of the Patriarchy Propaganda Council morning and evening, and have the person flip the bird, both hands, at Tony and his cronies. Every day. Just so they understand the utter contempt in which their scumbaggery is held. Shitsacks like that deserve nothing more than a big "fuck you, buddy."
Posted by: heliobates
|
June 1, 2010 8:55 PM
@51
http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,10861/
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 1, 2010 9:07 PM
Qwerty: The sad thing about this is that gays and lesbians have been a part of military life throughout the history of our nation.
Your point is good -- but your statement anachronistic. Were people "gay" in 1800? Of course, there were people with more or less same-sex attraction -- but that's not exactly the same thing as being "gay" in our current formulation. That's more of a late-19th century/20th century development.
Which is relevant -- because these "Patriarchalists" would like to return to an early time when "gay" didn't exist -- where women were legally children, where there was only one public pattern of sexuality, and the world was filled with private fetishes and perversions that the powerful could inflict on the weak, while the weak were stripped of any rights to their bodies at all.
Which then suggests why the closet cases are attracted to these movements -- because, yes, there are powerful people who prefer the closet as an opportunity to inflict sexuality, rather than share sexuality. They don't get off unless they can think of sex as a perversion they can force on others -- think how many rich white men preferred a time when they could rape the black maid and there was little she could do about it (and a drum roll for that late, great Strom Thurmond and his Christian charity for his black daughter -- while she stayed in his closet)
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 1, 2010 9:20 PM
"Everyone I've ever heard who talks about gay people like Tony Perkins does, has turned out to be as gay as a pink house."
Aw, but ain't that America?
Posted by: RichVR
|
June 1, 2010 9:22 PM
tightly puckered smarmy jiveweasels inhabiting right wing Christian think-tanks
I think I love you, PZ.
Posted by: wirelizard
|
June 1, 2010 9:38 PM
Watching American politics from Canada is frequently surreal, (some strange and scary people south of the border...) but rarely more so than the whole homosexual rights debate.
Canada's military has been open to homosexuals since 1992.
Canada's first same-sex military wedding was in 2005. (try that one on for size, Yank fundagelicals!)
A former co-worker is a non-commissioned officer in the Canuck Navy, an 'out' lesbian, and an awesome person (wicked, warped sense of humour!). She figured she got less crap than her straight female collegues, because the guys knew hitting on her was a waste of time...
Total effect of all this on the effectiveness of the Canadian Forces? Fuck all, it seems.
For sane people in sane(r) countries, this really is a non-issue. Really.
(Wikipedia's "LGBT policy in the Canadian military, with links to various sources.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 1, 2010 9:41 PM
Shortly before I left the Navy in 1972 the Engineering Department Administrative Assistant (aka Bull Nuke) in my submarine retired. This guy was a nuclear Electronics Technician Master Chief (E9). He came out of the closet the day after he retired. When this news hit the ship most peoples' reaction was "I don't care." And we didn't care. The vast majority of service people don't care if someone's gay or not. It's the Bible thumpers and bigots, folks like Tony Perkins, who get all excited about gays in the military.
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
June 1, 2010 9:46 PM
I love the smell of projection in the morning!
Just because women can't hardly serve in the military without having to deal with male heterosexual soldiers constantly trying to commit violent acts on them, doesn't mean gay servicemen can't control themselves! The fact that gay soldiers a) don't sexually abuse their comrades under the current status quo, and b) manage to keep their sexual identities secret under the current status quo, means they probably have better impulse control than transparently oblivious bigoted fuckheads like Tony Perkins, AND lack the pathologically inflated sense of privilege over men in their midst that some het soldiers exercise over women.
Posted by: Kirk
|
June 1, 2010 9:54 PM
I pondered whether to even attempt a post on this, because you can't do it justice in a few lines, and it will be misinterpreted, and people don't read the longer posts, but here goes.
This is an issue where readers of this blog can make a difference by writing (pen on paper in your own hand has more effect) to their congress-people and senators.
I was in the Army (active and reserve) for a long time and understand the management point of view, which is that the armed forces are all about the euphemism called the "management of violence", which is difficult, so those in charge want to do everything they can to maximize control. People tend to go out of control when they are applying violence, so there is a fear on the part of leadership that they will lose control. This is a real and valid concern.
In any environment, favoritism causes hard feelings. And one thing that can cause favoritism is if a superior is having a sexual relationship with a subordinate. This is a valid concern in any organization. In the military, it can cause people to think "Person X didn't have to partake in the dangerous mission because person Y in authority is doing the mystery dance with person X. So I got stuck with the dangerous job." Or "My buddy is dead (or maimed for life)" for a similar reason.
But it doesn't matter what the cause of favoritism is. It can be heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, money, flattery, etc. In the military, most of the leadership is male, so sex can be a powerful bribe to gain favoritism.
So when you write your congress-person, you can simply point out that sexual relations between members of a chain of command are inappropriate, regardless whether they are hetero or homo sexual.
And that's really all there is to it. The rest of it is just religious homophobia. But to be effective with your congress-person I'd leave that part out.
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 1, 2010 9:55 PM
heliobates @70:
That article is very chucklesome.
Posted by: Kirk
|
June 1, 2010 10:01 PM
Oh, and on the topic of chaplains: there shouldn't be any in the military.
I think it was James Madison who already covered this.
Unfortunately, since they have been there for a long time, it will be very hard to get chaplains out of the military.
But getting civil rights for all US citizens in the US armed forces should be something that is possible.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
June 1, 2010 10:06 PM
TP has been on cable news shows spewing his brand of stupidity in the past. Hitchens called him out on CNN for being a complete hypocrit demanding that the government recognize the NDoP out of one side of his face while demanding out the other that the government stay out of his life. If I had a show I'd get him on, invite a gay former marine or SEAL on as the counterpoint, and then let TP go first and see how he fares.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 1, 2010 10:06 PM
I can't bring myself to feel sorry for people who kill other people. That includes, first and foremost those religious apologists for murder, the army chaplains. But it does not excuse gay members of the military. Anyone who is prepared to kill an 18 year old boy or girl (s)he doesn't even know has earned my sincerest contempt.
Bully for you, but your contemptibly stupid simplemindedness is irrelevant to the issue of discrimination and injustice.
Posted by: paulmurray
|
June 1, 2010 10:07 PM
It's adding insult to injury. The chaplains are already forbidden to say that witches ought to be put to death, according to the bible. Where will it all end?
Posted by: wall of separation
|
June 1, 2010 10:11 PM
JUst when I think that religious minded people (of the more fundamentalist variety)can get no lower in the ranks of stupid propaganda statements, they come out with the kind of crap quoted in your posts.
These people are either (a)genuinely paranoid in regards to homosexuality or diversity in general (b)are hiding behind childish paranoia to further their propoganda.
Either reason would suggest the need for professional help.
Posted by: James F
|
June 1, 2010 10:11 PM
Rey Fox #72:
+106
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 1, 2010 10:13 PM
Aquaria @ 65;
My bad. It is just that I could very easily believe in fundies who are so blinkered that the would actually create an entity called the Patriarchy Research Council. I guess a varient of Poe's Law has struck again.
Still, the 'Family Research Council' is almost as bad, what with the Republican's fetishization of 'family values' and the extensive political deployment of the term as a fig leaf for a "no queers on our patch" style sentiment. This usually occurs just before a prominent Republican senator is caught with his trousers (often literaly) down...
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
June 1, 2010 10:16 PM
:::: clutches pearls ::::
Won't someone think of the pasty white bigoted misogynistic possibly closeted god-bots?
You guys are seriously harshing their
erectionlove forJesuspower.Oh, the tone !!
::::: faints :::::
:::: THUD!! ::::
... ok, who moved the damned couch again?
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
June 1, 2010 10:29 PM
FWIW, I think you added something important to the conversation, Kirk.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 1, 2010 10:30 PM
Qwerty: "The sad thing about this is that gays and lesbians have been a part of military life throughout the history of our nation."
Your point is good -- but your statement anachronistic.
That's a rather silly statement when Qwerty cited Randy Shilt's "Conduct Unbecoming", which is subtitled "Gays & Lesbians in the Military".
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 1, 2010 10:32 PM
[quote fail due to scienceblogs' braindamaged misparsing of html]
Qwerty: "The sad thing about this is that gays and lesbians have been a part of military life throughout the history of our nation."
Your point is good -- but your statement anachronistic.
That's a rather silly statement when Qwerty cited Randy Shilt's "Conduct Unbecoming", which is subtitled "Gays & Lesbians in the Military".
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 1, 2010 10:34 PM
I am sure that a few months ago I heard some right wing talking head in the US* claiming that the reason why European militaries had "degenerated" since their "glory days"** was because they had allowed homosexual "infiltration" of their armed forces. This was put forward as a reason why America should not abandon 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. In essence; 'it has been tried in Europe, and look at what a catastrophe that was. They can't even grind poor nations under their heel for profit properly any more!'
Of course, the usual jibes about European secularism leading to moral collapse were also thrown in for good measure.
So, for the right wing pundits there is a choice. You can either have a progressive, modern state that extends full rights to homosexuals in civil society and the armed forces, or you can have a powerful military presence worldwide. You cannot have both.
The idea that you could have a well trained, well equipped professional fighting force founded upon progressive principles of secularism and equality for all and the defence of such values from... well, the kind of fundies you get on Faux News would doubtless make their heads explode.
* Could have been Bill O'Reilly. Could have been Bill Donohue. Could even have been Anne Coulter, they are all much of a muchness in their vile rightwing-nuttery.
** I assume this was a reference to World War 2, but it is quite possible that they were referring to Europe's unpleasant colonial past.
Posted by: Samantha
|
June 1, 2010 10:35 PM
Not having read all the other comments, I feel the need to make this point (apologies if someone else has made it):
For a military that not only accepts female recruits but actively puts them in sections with all males, they're awfully worried about "forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects [because it] would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault".
Funny, I'm pretty sure all of this has happened to some level or another to female soldiers and they've been told to suck it up and deal with it, exact verbiage aside. Are these people honestly trying to suggest that the few occasions of homosexual harassment will be anything like the straight harassment female soldiers have endured?
Of course, for them, the idea of being "gay" is far worse than any actual rape or coercion or harassment could be, provided it was straight! We must protect our fundamentalist "old boy" soldiers at all cost!
I can't even think of a derogatory term strong enough for this sort!
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 1, 2010 10:35 PM
Crap ... make that ...
which is subtitled "Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military".
The book does in fact cover "military life throughout the history of our nation".
Posted by: erpease
|
June 1, 2010 10:35 PM
To be fair a large number of religious groups did ask Congress to repeal DADT (PDF).
And from a press release about the letter.
“As military chaplains, we routinely work with service members whose faith traditions and belief systems are different from ours. The idea that repeal of DADT will infringe on our religious liberty is insulting to all the serving chaplains who professionally minister to and with people of diverse beliefs every day,” said Captain John F. Gundlach, a retired Chaplain of the U.S. Navy. “It is time to realize that bigotry – not one’s sexual orientation – is incompatible with military service. It’s time for gay Americans to be able to serve our country proudly and openly, with continued courage, honor, and commitment.”
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 1, 2010 10:36 PM
If right-winged Christian chaplains are bemoaning the loss of being able to stigmatize gays and lesbians, they could always go back to harassing Jews as "Christ-Killers"
Posted by: kb
|
June 1, 2010 10:38 PM
http://www.stufffundieslike.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/goodforthegoose.png
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
June 1, 2010 10:39 PM
There was a great Daily show with Jon Stewart episode about this. First he shows Bush, Cheney and a bunch of right wing pundits talking about how vitally import it is to torture prisoners. Then he brings up the dismissal of Lt. Dan Choi, one of the 54 arabic translators dismissed from the military for their sexual orientation.
A couple of quotes:
"... so it's OK to waterboard a guy over 80 times but god forbid the guy who can understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend. "
"Waterboarding may make the prisoner talk, but it ain't gonna make him talk English. "
My favorite is "the one line America will not cross..."
Posted by: chaseacross
|
June 1, 2010 10:49 PM
Anyone else think maybe the reason Perkins and company are worried about this law might have to do with the demographic consequences in their flocks? The South contributes a disproportionate number of people to the armed forces, many of them raised in restrictive, fundamentalist faith traditions. Now they're going to be indoctrinated (I mean that in a technical, not a perjorative sense- their children will be taught military doctrine), to be tolerant of homosexuals as a matter of national security. 1.4 million active duty, 1.4 million reserve, that comes to 2.8 million Americans who are going to become proud supporters of the military's "gay agenda," raising their kids accordingly, telling their grandchildren how there is no discrimination in the foxhole.
Perkins, Dobson, Robertson- they got reason to be scared. They're about to lose big.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
June 1, 2010 10:55 PM
"For no other offense than believing what all the great monotheistic religions have believed for all of history..."
Hilarious.
The guy believes that history began with monotheism. He needs to go play Civilization, at least. We're not making this shit up: there's a ton of human history way before monotheism emerged as a phenotype to bond societies together.
And that's just the hippo's whisker of history which is mankind's existence.
Finally, if you'd like your religion to have a say in how the taxpayers' dollars are spent, then please do renounce your tax-free status. When the churches, synagogues, mosques, et al begin paying their fair share, Americans are going to be weeping with joy come refund time.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
June 1, 2010 11:39 PM
From the mission compromised link:
It always comes down to this, doesn't it. That there are people who are perfectly happy with their genitalia and are not remiss in sharing their delight with others, and those pitiful few who believe, believe! that such delight heralds the fall of mankind and the ascendancy of a new world that mirrors their fantasies. Say what?
Why is it always about our
pee-pees and the novel uses we have discov . . .reproductive nature? Could it be that a true believer sees that the continuous production of new humans without regard to ancient customs and the continuous success they display without regard to ancient customs sort of makes them look (and feel, I presume) a bit obsolete? Methinks so.By my count the current score is
(there are a couple of things I like about religion when I'm feeling magnanimous)
Oh yeah, why is it that the religious seem to be so adept at connecting reproduction (with all its lovely embellishments) and sex in general (similarly embellished) with war, carnage, and, uh, stuff like that there?
Posted by: nejishiki
|
June 1, 2010 11:40 PM
There is a lot of Sartrean 'Bad Faith' in these homophobes. Sartre's best example was the uneasy feeling you have when you're looking over a steep cliff - not the fear that you might be pushed, but the fear that, for whatever reason, you might jump.
Posted by: otrame
|
June 1, 2010 11:40 PM
And they will too. I was an Air Force brat and I still remember (hmm, ca. 1960, IIRC) when the people next door got kicked off base because the WIFE loudly and publicly screamed about how she shouldn't have to live next door to no nigger. The husband got demoted, his family kicked off base (which meant increased financial troubles) and could be guaranteed to not get another promotion (though it probably wouldn't have been like that if it was only his spouse spouting--he probably had a few things to say to the wrong people too). I'm sure he left as soon as he could and good riddance.
It is a fact that the military in the US often leads the way in progressive social change. Which seems strange because the military is by nature very conservative and often full of very conservative people. But in the military, once the commander-in-chief says it, it becomes the rules. Those rules are not perfectly enforced, especially at first, but the change is always much faster than in society in general. Blacks and women have benefited, and it has been a part of the spread of progressive change through the rest of society. Once gays are openly welcomed into the military, that will help enormously in "normalizing" gays in the eyes of your average dolt. I know it shouldn't have to be that way, but it is.
Oh, and those of you who have disparaged military people...FUCK YOU. You know fuck all about it (obviously). I am the daughter, friend, spouse, and mother of military people. You are entitled to your opinion but it is a slimy, mean-spirited, ignorant, arrogant, fuck-headed, STUPID opinion.
Well, I am prepared to kill an 18 year old--whether I know him or her or not--if I must to protect my family or even (Cthulhu help me) YOU. Don't get me wrong, I was vehemently opposed to the Iraq war (and long before I knew my son was going to end up spending two years there), but don't you dare blame the soldiers, you sanctimonious creep. Contempt is the kindest thought I have for you.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 1, 2010 11:42 PM
Perkins has "mountains of evidence to the contrary"? Wow, talk about delusional. Well, Mr. Perkins, where's this evidence of yours?
Now is Perkins a chaplain in the military? If not, why is he claiming to speak for them? If he is, then why is he claiming to speak for them?
Posted by: TimKO,,.,,
|
June 1, 2010 11:56 PM
People seem to assume that repealing DADT means that the military becomes gay.
but...
a)It just means the Pentagon will get to set its own policy
b)The military is already gay..I know the Navy is highly gay.
Couldn't repealing DADT lead to less gay people serving?
Why does everybody all-of-a-sudden (in the media) think it means Don't Serve Don't Enlist?
Posted by: Marella
|
June 2, 2010 12:05 AM
The only person who could possibly imagine that one's sexuality was a choice is a gay person who has chosen to pretend to be straight and thinks that everyone else should have to do the same, coughtedhaggardcough.
I am sure all these raging homophobes are closeted gays who have been taught to hate themselves, it's quite sad really if you're in a forgiving kind of a mood. I feel even more sorry for their wives though, and all the people whose lives they they ruin.
Posted by: Kaleberg5
|
June 2, 2010 12:15 AM
Jews actually did have to fight to serve in the armed forces, but that was in New Amsterdam, before the United States was formed. Peter Stuyvesant didn't want them on Wall Street back when it was just a defensive wall. He was a serious religious bigot and had it in for Jews, Quakers, and probably a whole lot of others if they had shown up on his watch. Luckily, he worked for the relatively enlightened Dutch West India Company which repeatedly slapped him down on this kind of garbage. Sorry, the military is where Americans go to fight for their country, and that means all Americans.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
June 2, 2010 12:32 AM
#77 FTW.
Most men are heterosexual. The world's armies (don't forget: there are centuries' experience with this beyond the US army) have rarely been bothered with blocking the gays from signing up. In some cases this is because the existence of homosexuals was denied. In some cases, because half of the officers were gay. But mostly just because our ancestors realized that liking the cock had no influence on one's ability to fire a gun, or throw a bomb, or swing a sword.
Gay or straight: war is won by instilling a hatred of some other folk within people, and then equipping those guys to go out and defend US from THEM.
I have not served in the military, but my experiences of men who have is this: it's perfectly obvious who is gay, and nobody gives a pixel. If two homosexuals want to give each other a blowjob after lights out: fine. Because within a few weeks, the heterosexuals will be relieving themselves into a prostitute or two.
Posted by: James F
|
June 2, 2010 12:37 AM
chaseacross #97:
Exactly, and on multiple fronts. I'm going to be optimistic and say that the U.S. Senate will follow the House and vote for the repeal plan for DADT to be added to the defense authorization bill, and after the Pentagon study DADT will be scuttled. Then there's DOMA, which is being challenged in federal court, not to mention the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Watch for them to ramp up the rhetoric on ENDA next.
Posted by: Rick Miller
|
June 2, 2010 12:54 AM
Last I heard, the people who needed to change how they behave sexually were the *clergy*.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 2, 2010 1:53 AM
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e
|
June 2, 2010 2:25 AM
@ #52 Newfie,
I was under the impression that these are also the only countries that haven't gone metric, or at least committed to go to the metric system of measurements.
Any connection? I don't know. Any ideas?
plumberbob
Posted by: Buzz Parsec
|
June 2, 2010 3:10 AM
@#48 Llewelly,
That's exactly what struck me when I read the "missioncompromised" quote, but I couldn't come up with a way to express it so clearly.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD
|
June 2, 2010 3:45 AM
Because within a few weeks, the heterosexuals will be relieving themselves into a prostitute or two.
Y'know, SlantedScience almost, almost had a reasonable and insightful (if masculonormative) comment going there. And then he simply had to toss that head-deskingly obnoxious last line in.
Posted by: Sclerophanax
|
June 2, 2010 4:03 AM
What have all the great monotheistic religions believed for "all of history"? That there is a single god? Even if we only accept the Abrahamic religions as "great" - as I'm sure Perkins does - there is no one clear statement they'd make on homosexuality. Hell, going by the Books of Samuel, love between two men was a-okay among the ancient hebrews. Of course you could argue they were still henotheists or monolatrists back then, but with that limitation, we have to ignore pretty much everythin the Bible says relating to same-sex relations before Paul's diatribes about homosexual temple prostitution. In fact Paul seems to be the first to even mention female homosexuality, and I'm pretty sure there are a few lesbians in the army too...
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 2, 2010 4:09 AM
Falyne, FCD:
SS Assclam is at its best in a killfile. There's nothing to be gained by reading or responding. (This will inspire a rant about this being an open forum).
Posted by: Finch
|
June 2, 2010 4:46 AM
Hey PZ, do us a favor: if some jiveweasel actually invites you onto the cable/radio airwaves, make sure to call them a jiveweasel. It would be The Best Thing Ever (tm)
Not that it hasn't been said, but I generally like having some actual substance in my commentaries of things: Don't Ask Don't Tell is/was a terrible policy and it makes me very happy to hear pundits talking about it's repeal as a forgone conclusion. Unfortunately, I'd also call it a forgone conclusion that republicans (read: jiveweasels) will try to use it as a talking point in November.
JIVEWEASELS!
Posted by: revjimbob
|
June 2, 2010 5:20 AM
"Their ministry is to proclaim the moral and theological teachings of their faith"
Yeah – like "Thou shalt not kill".
Posted by: JamesR
|
June 2, 2010 6:38 AM
Tony Perkins has nothing on this nutbag.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2010/05/28/family-research-council/
Fellating soldiers in their sleep non the less.
Posted by: DLC
|
June 2, 2010 7:45 AM
I wonder if Perkins has a strong, virile young man to help him lift his luggage.
Posted by: Colin
|
June 2, 2010 7:56 AM
Just two notes :
1. Alexander The Great.
2. Sparta.
Posted by: Nancy New
|
June 2, 2010 8:02 AM
PZ, as someone who embraces the creative and imaginative use of language, I salute you.
Speaking of creative language and the patriarchy of the Family Research council--folks DO know, don't you, that the amazing Dan Savage is advocating the expression "lift your luggage" as the latest synonym for "get your rocks off" or "turns your crank?"
Other expressions he has been promoting for general use include "saddlebacking" (after a certain church)--the current trend for young Xians to have anal sex because they're saving vaginal sex-virginity for marraige...
and "Santorum" ...the mix of lubricant and other materials exuded in the aftermath of anal sex (which, as someone who lives in PA, pretty well describes ol' Rick--greasy shit).
Posted by: Colin
|
June 2, 2010 8:05 AM
#117 - nice link. I'd certainly join that Army.
Dunno, though; do you think it's a chargeable offense if you're just pretending to sleep?
Posted by: maarten.jan
|
June 2, 2010 8:21 AM
You forgot to mention that the don't ask don't tell policy doesn't exist in other countries, for example, here in the Netherlands. I've never EVER heard of any trouble with gays in the army.
Posted by: RijkswaanVijanD
|
June 2, 2010 8:45 AM
Christian think-tanks???
LOL!!!
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
June 2, 2010 8:47 AM
Oh those poor, oppressed white, Christian, (allegedly) heterosexual males. Truly, the most persecuted minorities in the United States of Russia.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
June 2, 2010 8:57 AM
Somehow, I think that a great many soldiers will vigorously disagree with that.I would also seriously question the patriotism of someone who would refuse to serve his country just because he might have to fight alongside a man who thought he was attractive.
Posted by: Darrell E
|
June 2, 2010 9:42 AM
These religious creeps are so fucking ignorant about, apparently, everything. They should study a little history, as opposed to fantasy. For example.
How would this asshole explain that the Theban Sacred Band was considered to be the elite of elite military units, and that it was composed of paired homosexual male lovers? And that under Pelopidas the Sacred Band beat a Spartan army three times its size at the battle of Tegyra, and was instrumental in defeating the Spartans at the battle of Leuctra breaking Sparta's dominance?
That is just one example of how gay people are no more different than any other human being, and that this fact has been amply demonstrated already throughout history. These weak kneed bigots really should at least attempt to stop denying reality and learn a little real history. Their excuses for their intolerance have already been proved to be without foundation.
Over 2,300 years ago Philip II of Macedon said upon seeing the remains of the Sacred Band which had refused to surrender to his vastly superior army, "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."
Posted by: sdhardie
|
June 2, 2010 10:05 AM
"Forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault."
Oh, you mean like it does when the soldiers are female and the guys viewing them as sexual objects are straight?
Funny, but I still see women in the military, despite the fact that heterosexual males rape and assault them more often in the military than in civilian life.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
June 2, 2010 10:19 AM
How can people who spew such vitriol against homosexuals and come up with the gay organization name "Patriarchy Research Council" not be engaging in smokescreen piety?
As I retired Air Force officer with 20 years of service I know exactly how much affect repealing DADT will have on accomplishing the mission: it will improve our capability to get the mission done.
Sorry PRC but few people in the military care who you sleep with, and if a few religious bigots in chaplains uniforms have issues then they can resign their commissions in protest. But I suspect that most won't; they'll stay where they are becuase the pay is good and it allows them to continue to spread their dogma among the few mouth-breathers in the military who still buy into such myths as "gay is bad" and "there are no atheists in foxholes."
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 2, 2010 12:22 PM
Colin @ # 119: 1. Alexander The Great.
2. Sparta.
And, as others have mentioned above, Thebes.
To which I would add: Frederick the Great.
(But not Richard Lionheart: the stories about his gayness don't seem to go back before 1970, while the rumors of his insatiable wenching date back to his lifetime.)
Posted by: Matt Bright
|
June 2, 2010 12:34 PM
@ otrame:
The military is voluntary. Now I know that ‘voluntary’ is a wobbly word when you’re economically and socially disadvantaged and living in places where employment opportunities are limited, but certainly anyone who consciously chooses to enter a profession where you know perfectly well you might have to kill people must bear a certain level of responsibility for their deaths.
I don’t quite have the same kind of contempt for soldiering as Monsieur Apercus – mainly because there are people for whom it’s the only reasonable option and who get much further in life with it than they would otherwise have done. I’m certain, too, that many soldiers are lovely people, but I won’t respect them any more than I would respect those who work at abattoirs. Both are necessary but deeply, deeply regrettable aspects of human civilisation as currently constituted.
I suspect this is why the military does occasionally end up being more progressive – you can’t afford to be irrationally picky if you’re asking someone to do something quite so manifestly horrid. It’s also, I suppose, why fundies are perfectly happy just being flat out nasty about gay civilians, but their arguments about the military tend to be couched in flimsy claims of decreased operational efficiency.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 2, 2010 12:35 PM
For the record people, the "Patriarchy Research Council" is actually the "Family Research Council". PZ use "Patriarchy" instead of "Family" because they have no interest in helping the family. They only have interest in helping the male patriarchy.
Posted by: Darrell E
|
June 2, 2010 2:01 PM
Posted by: Matt Bright | June 2, 2010 12:34 PM
This does not seem to be a very good argument to me since it could very well be used to argue why soldiers should be afforded a certain level of respect for what they are volunteering to endure. Actually, it seems a much better argument for than against.
Human society is not yet the warless society that we wish it to be. I would agree that pushing in that direction is a very good thing to do. But regardless of whether or not a soldier is a volunteer, soldiers do not decide how the military is used.
I am sure that many people who enter military service have thought through that they may have to kill someone at some point in their service. Just as I am sure that some people have thought about it and concluded that they would not likely be put in that position, and still others that look at it differently and have decided to enter the service in order to help other people, while still others have not thought of any of these things at all.
If you want to target the real war pigs, target the politicians and other power brokers who are actually the cause of armed conflicts, and who almost never take any responsibility for the deaths they cause. Targeting soldiers is a poor tactic, since it does not work worth a shit to stop armed conflicts, and your typical soldier does not deserve anything but the same respect you would give any other person you know almost nothing about.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 2, 2010 3:59 PM
TruthMachine: That's a rather silly statement when Qwerty cited Randy Shilt's "Conduct Unbecoming", which is subtitled "Gays & Lesbians in the Military".
And what the fuck does a late 20th century journalist have to do with the meaning of "gay" in the 18th century, other than as evidence of the tendency for anachronism in late 20th century thinking?
Talk about silly. Will you next posit the fact that in medieval bestiaries there were unicorns in Prester's lands as evidence that, in fact, there were unicorns in Prester's land? (This is not an insult to Shilt's work, just it's usage as a cultural barometer of 2 centuries previous).
Posted by: kb
|
June 2, 2010 4:34 PM
America is, ideally, a democracy, which means the people rule. You may not have made a decision personally that we should go to war with Iraq, but America, as a people, voted for GW and the entire congress at the time. We're all, as a collective group, responsible for what our military does. It's easier to push that responsibility off on the people who sign up to do what we tell them to do and ignore our part. Soldiers may be like someone who works at an abattoir, but we own the place.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2DkvJq0Zs.HfX1slPTahWjpNkP3H#c7fe8
|
June 2, 2010 5:53 PM
The Uncaped Crusader Professor Myers wrote:
"Hey, that sounds familiar — isn't that the same claim Muslims use for swaddling women up to protect them from the uncontrollable lusts of men?"
Ha, haaa, haaaa - this from a country which went beserk at the the sight of a nipple during the infamous 'Wardrobe Malfunction'?
And this would be the same military that shredded a Reuters reporter and others in Iraq. The irony is delcious. One of the arguments used to invaded was that Saddam Hussein was so evil he actually shredded people as a means of torture.
Posted by: timgueguen
|
June 2, 2010 6:12 PM
If one were to use the Canadian military of late as a example it would seem having straight men in the military is the real problem. Colonel Russell Williams, former commander of CFB Trenton, one of our most important air bases, is currently awaiting trial for two counts of murder and two counts of rape. These crimes took place while he was base commander. The commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Brigadier General Daniel Menard, was just relieved of duty after it came out he was having an affair with one of his female staff members. And the fundies are all worried a few guys might get flustered from being hit on by another guy....
Posted by: Tom Fool
|
June 2, 2010 6:48 PM
If homosexuality is a "choice," as Perkins claims, then it stands to reason that heterosexuality is as well. Do any of you heterosexuals out there recall the day you decided to be heterosexual? I do. When that big day came for me, I created a list of all the benefits to being heterosexual vs. the benefits of being homosexual and when there where more pluses in the heterosexual column than the homosexual, I made my decision.
Anyone else use a different method they'd like to share? I wonder how Tony Perkins made his choice.
Posted by: Tom Fool
|
June 2, 2010 6:57 PM
Samantha # 91,
Heterosexual rape is ok. Remember Lot's daughters?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 2, 2010 11:23 PM
kb @ # 134: ... America, as a people, voted for GW ...
Uh, where were you in November of 2000?
Me, I was in Florida, and I'm here to remind you that - even among those of us who turned out for the election - Boy George received a minority of votes in this "deciding" state and nationwide.
His crucial majority was on the Supreme Court.
We're all, as a collective group, responsible ...
There you have a much better case - but in this instance, our failure came not from voting but from allowing our votes, and our nation, to be hijacked.
Posted by: kb
|
June 2, 2010 11:48 PM
@139:
That's true, but we still all bought into the system, either actively or passively. And then decided not to change it so that it couldn't happen again.
If your politician who you didn't vote for writes a bill to pay for a road you didn't want money spent on to build, you still get to drive on the road. And you don't blame the road workers for building it.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 3, 2010 10:06 AM
kb @ # 140: ... we still all ... decided not to change it so that it couldn't happen again.
Dunno about you, but I was in the streets protesting.
... you still get to drive on the road.
How you stretch that metaphor to cover the Bush (now Bush/Obama) wars boggles my little brain. But I take your larger point: after all, I still pay my taxes, and haven't even protested enough to land in jail.
And as for the "workers", I just spent the entire Memorial Day weekend paying tribute to approximately 5,473 of them (5,475 by Monday), and I'm still sleep-deprived enough to be grouchy about it.
Posted by: kb
|
June 3, 2010 12:00 PM
"Dunno about you, but I was in the streets protesting."
What I'm saying is, you don't get to claim superiority as an individual over the soldiers because of your political beliefs about what they're doing. Which is not what you've said, but what Matt Bright was doing when he said he didn't respect soldiers because he thought their job was immoral. If you or he had been thrown in jail for protesting, that wouldn't change the fact that the system of government that we (if we're all in the US) live under decided to go to war, and despite our individual disagreement with that decision, it is still America as a whole that did it. It doesn't matter that the other side was more powerful than you, or that resistance is futile, or that there was no way people who disagreed with the war could split off into their own country to be considered separate from the decision. You don't get to wash your hands of responsibility because you voted, and then blame the people hired to carry out what was decided.
I'm sure people disagreed with the Japanese internment camps, and in a way they're less morally culpable, but in another way America as a whole is culpable. The manpower and what (crappy) resources went into making the internment camps came out of everyone's taxes at the time whether they wanted it to or not, and the reparations likewise (rightly) came out of everyone's taxes whether they were alive at the time or not. Just because no one benefited from the internment doesn't mean we can say no one was responsible. And we can't blame it all on the soldiers that carried out the orders to make the camps when the citizenry as a whole let it happen. Just because we're not benefiting from the war, or voted for it, or like it, doesn't mean we get to pass off our responsibility on the people we hired to carry out what the government decided. If it makes you sleep better at night, you can feel like you did your best to stop it. But that doesn't give you the right to pass judgement on the soldiers for being responsible for the war.
It sounds like, with your Memorial Day tribute, that you're not blaming the soldiers for the war, which is what I was annoyed with to begin with by other people on the thread. It makes more sense to blame people more directly responsible for starting the war, like Bush et al., but you should still blame yourself before the soldiers.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 3, 2010 12:59 PM
kb @ # 142: Which is not what you've said, but what Matt Bright was doing when he said ...
Matt Bright will have to speak for himself (should he ever return to this thread, which the bookies in Vegas don't seem to favor this afternoon).
Personally, I'm mildly intrigued by your drive to implicate all Americans in our recent collective atrocities while exonerating all American troops in same. There may be a grain of truth in both positions, but holding them simultaneously puts you at some risk of cranial detonation.
Are we all responsible for Bush's crimes? In varying degrees, yes. The troops? Ditto.
Consider the monsters who abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib, or the bastards who were convicted by courts-martial for raping a 14-yr-old and murdering her & her family in Anbar Province. What "support" do these troops deserve? Even from the jingoistic point of view, they are responsible for the deaths of many other US troops, just by having provoked an unknown number of suicide bombers and other resistance fighters.
A number of veteran friends of mine volunteered as counselors for the GI Rights Hotline (877-447-4487), aiding troops in trouble for all sorts of reasons, many for objecting to the war(s). My friends gave it up last year: not from feeling fatigue or futility, but because so many fewer calls were coming in (and most of those from screwups who got drunk and missed a movement or the like). By now, pretty much all of the troops participating in our criminal wars know (as well as any non-combat-veteran can) what they're getting into, and they apparently have no big moral problem with that.
Shades of gray, all over the place - tastefully highlighted with random splatters of blood.
Posted by: kb
|
June 3, 2010 2:46 PM
"Personally, I'm mildly intrigued by your drive to implicate all Americans in our recent collective atrocities while exonerating all American troops in same."
I'm not trying to exonerate all troops, I suppose we're all equally guilty in terms of the war existing, since they're citizens too. But I don't think the troops are more guilty for simply being in the military. If they committed crimes, then yes, they are guilty of those crimes more so than other people. But not all of the individual troops have inflicted torture or broken international human rights laws. I don't think the majority of people who join the military want to kill civilians. I don't think that joining, knowing that you might accidentally kill a civilian because you think they're trying to kill you, makes you more responsible for the war existing. I think it's up to the people of America, who conveniently don't have to face a draft and therefore are (more-than-they-should-be) fine with mostly "other people" going to war and accidentally killing civilians, to demand an end to it.
"Consider the monsters who abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib, or the bastards who were convicted by courts-martial for raping a 14-yr-old and murdering her & her family in Anbar Province. What "support" do these troops deserve?"
None. They should be tried for their crimes and punished. Human rights violations should not be tolerated. But simply being in the military does not mean you are going to commit human rights violations, or that you expect to. Being in the military doesn't make the war any more or less likely to happen. It doesn't make human rights violations any more or less likely to happen. It doesn't mean that you think we should be in the war, it doesn't mean you think we should go to war with Iran, it doesn't mean you think we need to be at war with anybody. It means you took a job that requires you to do whatever the government tells you to do, and when we're not careful our government sucks.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 3, 2010 6:38 PM
kb @ # 144: ... troops... they're citizens too.
Well, most of 'em. An increasing number aren't, but were promised citizenship for service.
... the people of America, who conveniently don't have to face a draft...
I'm amazed how many anti-war people are turning pro-draft - even those (like me) who opposed the war against Vietnam, and who should remember that upper-class white boys were typically found more suitable for desk jobs & the Texas Air National Guard.
Being in the military doesn't make the war any more or less likely to happen.
Not until we get to the "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" stage, admittedly unlikely in this generation.
... when we're not careful our government sucks.
And we've been much too careless for much too long!
Posted by: Matt Bright
|
June 4, 2010 9:52 AM
OK, I probably used unwarranted shorthand. I respect soldiers in the same base-level, golden-rule way that I respect any other human being. What I don’t respect, and indeed find repugnant, is the profession of soldiering. Soldiers may suffer the unpleasant business of having to kill people. The people being killed/injured/having their country’s infrastructure pounded into rubble for reasons that are nothing whatsoever to do with them, get the rather crappier end of the deal.
And there’s surely a manifest difference of moral degree between choosing to put oneself in a position to kill another human being in a war, and supporting – or even, as you seem to imply, failing to make sufficient attempts to overthrow – a government that turns out to be supporting one.
Posted by: kb
|
June 4, 2010 10:41 PM
@Matt Bright
I think that it is not morally wrong to put oneself in a position to kill another human being in a war when the rules of engagement require the other person to try to kill you first. I know that ideal often goes awry and innocent people are killed anyway, but I think the responsibility for that lies on those who decide to go to war, not those who carry it out. I don't think that accidentally killing an innocent person because they were afraid for their safety makes a soldier a bad person. I do think that starting a war means you take on the understanding that you (as a people) will kill innocent people. I don't think there's a moral difference between supporting the war and becoming a soldier, and I don't think there's a moral difference between not supporting the war and becoming a soldier.
Soldiers may also suffer the unpleasant business of dying, or living with a traumatic brain injury, or PTSD, or not being with their families. It's a pretty crappy deal, I mean, dead is dead, and the rest isn't great either. And while busting up in Iraq didn't do much for the infrastructure, now mostly soldiers are trying to build it back up. It's not like individuals from our military went around after the invasion ruining things, it was the insurgency that caused most of the violence. Is some guy from Illinois responsible for attacks against medical professionals, or is it the fact that we as a country decided to invade? I pick the latter.
It's the people who decided it would be a good idea to close up the "socialist" plants leaving thousands of people jobless and susceptible to joining the insurgency, or the people who gave no thought to what people employed in Saddam's army would do once unemployed, or the people who thought busting up in there with a minimum of manpower wouldn't lead to mass social chaos who pounded Iraq's infrastructure into rubble, not some 18 year old who's found a way to pay for college and ends up deployed to Iraq. It's the fact that we're in Iraq that's the problem, not what the soldiers do with it.
Posted by: kb
|
June 4, 2010 10:54 PM
Also @ Matt Bright, I probably unwarrantedly shorthanded your shorthand a little too much in my comment #142. My paraphrase sounds a little harsher than what you said.