The Spectacle Blog
In the 1970s, a radical coalition gained control of the municipal government of Berkeley, California. Shortly afterward, a shopkeeper put a sign in his window sarcastically describing the new order: “That which is not forbidden is mandatory.”
Radicalism is intolerant of ambiguity and has a way of imposing its demands in Manichean terms. One is either a Jacobin or l’ennemi du peuple. One is either a Bolshevik or a counter-revolutionary. And now, radicalism having come to America and taken up the task of re-arranging sexual morality, one must either endorse the gay-rights agenda or be condemned as a homophobic bigot.
The eagerness of intellectuals to avoid inclusion in the latter category has drawn the attention of Washington Times columnist Robert Knight:
On ABC’s This Week on May 30, [George] Will agreed with colleague Matthew Dowd that apart from a few glitches, homosexuality will soon be a non-issue in the military… .
Will: “For people of Matt’s son’s generation, being gay is like being left-handed. … The Supreme Court has a famous phrase it used in some opinion, the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society. Clearly these are evolving, and the case is over, basically.” …
What we are witnessing among the intelligentsia is a catastrophic case of groupthink: because they all repeat the same thing, it must be true. They ignore biology, morality, history, common sense, and grim health statistics because they are smarter than anyone.
Charles Krauthammer, who has written some of the best critiques of Obamacare and the rest of the Left’s assault on America , is also aboard the gay express. He’s smarter than God. So, too, are Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes, Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover, and American Spectator columnist Philip Klein, all of whom have called for repealing the military ban. Klein called it a “no-brainer.” …
Knight’s reference is to a Feb. 3 blog post in which Phil wrote:
I happen to be a heterosexual living in a neighborhood with a large gay population, and don’t feel at all threatened by it. I see gay couples when I buy groceries, eat at nearby restaurants, or enter the elevator to my apartment building. . . . I just don’t see it as a big deal one way or the other. So, quite honestly, I have to strain to try and understand why people are so concerned about gays serving in the military.
Of course, no one has proposed that Phil and his D.C. neighbors be rounded up, shipped to Parris Island for six weeks and then loaded onto a C-130 for deployment against the Taliban. However, the radicals have managed to frame the debate so that any critic is instantly met with the challenge: “What have you got against gay people?”
This has the effect of preventing examination of potential negative ramifications of the policy under consideration, as J.E. Dyer explained at Commentary:
Most advocates want to make the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) about fairness and feelings, but for those in the military, that’s not what it’s about. … One can have every sympathy for gays and still oppose the repeal of DADT, because what it portends in daily practice is administering a forced accommodation to gay behavior.
The feminist slogan, “The personal is political,” has been applied in the obverse here. The political is now the personal, so that we can no longer discuss the policy on its merits. Instead of debate, we have a moralistic melodrama in which the enlightened advocates of tolerance triumph over the benighted adherents of hate.
Rather than endeavoring to debunk the radical narrative, however, it seems George Will, et al., have decided to stand athwart history muttering, “Never mind.”
Conservatives who warn of unintended consequences ought not be dismissed lightly as America continues, to borrow a phrase from David Horowitz and Peter Collier, “Slouching Toward Berkeley.” Chronicling that city’s descent into radical madness, Horowitz and Collier noted that Berkeley activists had established an exemption to the leash law in Ohlone Park. The idea was that freeing pets from human control would permit the dogs to “exist harmoniously once separated from their owners’ ethic of possessiveness.” Alas, as one dog owner explained, this prophecy fell short of fulfillment:
“Some people were sure that the dogs would prove to be egalitarians… . But they aren’t. They come here and immediately join the pack, which is a strict hierarchy controlled by the top dog. The upshot is that they have a great time, but they aren’t really very progressive. It was a hard lesson for some of the radical pet owners around town to swallow. Not only have we failed to create the New Man in Berkeley; we haven’t even created the New Dog.”
Failure of Berkeley’s canine liberation agenda was predictable, of course, but one supposes all skepticism was suppressed because skeptics didn’t want to risk being denounced as “anti-dog.”
Well, I don’t hate dogs and I don’t hate Philip Klein’s neighbors, either, although I fail to see what relevance that has to the policy debate over gays in the military. What troubles me is the possibilities of where this Berkeleyization of the military may eventually lead.
Homosexuality may no longer forbidden, but it is not mandatory — yet.
View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/05/george-will-philip-klein-and-t
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sweet Home, Alabama
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
MikeN| 6.5.10 @ 11:31AM
Will was always like this. Way back in '96 he compared Magic Johnson playing in the NBA to the military's HIV ban.
Alan Brooks| 6.5.10 @ 9:43PM
"Rather than endeavoring to debunk the radical narrative, however, it seems George Will, et al., have decided to stand athwart history muttering, "Never mind."
A fundamentalist says: "the Bible says it and I believe it. case closed."
I say: "if George Will says it, then I believe it. Case closed."
Everyone takes their cue from SOMEONE.
You guys have your icons, others have theirs-- name your poison.
Comenius| 6.6.10 @ 11:45AM
Shouldn't the merit of the arguement enter at some point? I'm a fan of Will's (not on this point, though) because of the force of his argument, not that he's an "icon". THINK
Alan Brooks| 6.7.10 @ 12:23PM
Like Hell you don't worship icons, all rightwingers do-- from Jesus to Palin.
Margie| 6.7.10 @ 1:24PM
Simply not true that ALL rightwingers worship icons. Closer to the truth is this: That rightwingers know how to tell the difference between worshipping God, as opposed to worshipping a human being.
Liberals made a huge mistake in their worshipping of Obama as the One. That's why we're in this mess. They couldn't tell the difference.
Please, get out of our way, let us rightwingers do the right thing (as rightwingers do), and vote this false prophet out of office. Don't stand in our way. You're confused. We just want to take our country back from the Marxist party.
Thank you. This has been an unpaid ad from a concerned citizen.
Alan Brooks| 6.7.10 @ 3:07PM
All traditionalists worship authoritarian figures.
You are not anarchists or 'orthodox' libertarians.
And worship is not too strong a word;
worship is another way of saying intense admiration.
Margie| 6.7.10 @ 4:23PM
Well you have 2 diff. words and 2 diff. meanings.
And I don't know anything about what Libertarians may do, and I'm not interested, as you well know. I'm a conservative, right-wing, Christian, and a Republican.
I worship no man, but Jesus. No man is king, but Jesus. No one is Lord, but Jesus.
J.C.Eaton| 6.5.10 @ 11:45AM
Great little piece. Is it not astyounding how many really,really,really smart people,[just ask em] make handsome livings and get to walk around really smart, just by saying bull-sit!!!!!!! The Parris Island invite was aces! Best,
JP| 6.5.10 @ 11:49AM
As far as I understand the issue, the ban will be lifted allowing gays to openly enlist; however, the UCMJ prohibitions against gay behavior and its life style will not be removed. That is 2 men involved in sodomy can be disciplined either through non-judicial review or a court martial. This begs the question, "Why would any gays enlist?" They would certainly fail to get the necessary security clearences, would fail the physicals, and not be allowed to go into most career slots.
Of course, the courts would get involved. And when that happens, Katy Bar the Door. Gays will be able to get what they want from the courts, and you will see an undermining of military authority. Hetros will simply fail to enlist, or re-enlist. It will be a huge problem that will destroy our military.
Nobama| 6.5.10 @ 1:24PM
If we allow gay activism to destroy our military we deserve the consequences.
It's only a matter of time before our Bible preaching clergy are marched off to jail for hate speech.
Alan Brooks| 6.5.10 @ 9:49PM
"It's only a matter of time before our Bible preaching clergy are marched off to jail"
Jail is a good place to be educated on homosexuality.
A CRASH COURSE, one might say.
Nobama| 6.5.10 @ 11:08PM
Is that where you learned?
Boulder Intellecutal| 6.7.10 @ 2:42PM
Alan Brooks, I just love to see you teach and live the ideal that we must embrace divertsity.
You are so tolerant it is refeshing!
Thanks for showing how bigotted the left is.
Nobama| 6.5.10 @ 1:21PM
Gay activism will destroy the military if we allow it.
Great article, RSM.
C.H. Fowler| 6.5.10 @ 1:27PM
Of course, as someone once said, and I wish I could remember who it was, most liberals know more gay than they do service members. That conservatives are now so feckless in the defense of habits, custom, morality, and tradition is more evidence that the right is essentially willing to concede the debate to the left on most issues so they can fight the big ones, like....how much to spend on gay spouses hospital care...or whatever. Nothing exposes the so-called tolerance issue of the left like the discussion of gays. The left tolerates anything about gays and nothing from anyone who doesn't support their further identification as one of the Democratic Party's special interest groups. For them, tolerance means approval and the right giving up.
John - TMF| 6.5.10 @ 1:28PM
Why is all this going on? Simple.... This the chosen way to kill DOMA.
Gays enlist openly... Gay "spouses" from Gay States suddenly are eligible for Dependent ID cards, Dependent Medical Care... Forced federal recognition of Gay "marriage".
Don't think it won't happen. Five seconds after the repeal of DADT the line will start to form at the CAC office.
The reality is that Don't Ask Don't Tell was an effective policy that allowed homosexuals to serve in the military.
The truth is that is not why gays want it repealed. The military is not a social justice ministry. It is not a grand experiment.
Perhaps it is time, if the Regime insists on imposing this madness, for Americans to eschew service in uniform. Walk away, refuse to be a target or instrument of social engineering run amok. It is a volunteer force, and no one has to volunteer, do they?
-TMF
C.H. Fowler| 6.5.10 @ 2:18PM
John - TMF,
Are you suggesting an all-gay military - the gay berets?
John - TMF| 6.5.10 @ 2:41PM
Hum... I try to keep the discourse at a debate level. Devolving into a comedy routine sort of defeats one's own arguments so I tend to try to not be derisive. (Not that the thought hadn't crossed my mind, just that it wouldn't be useful in the debate at hand).
I am serious here. (I know you understand that, but many folks might not.) The military is force. It is structural regimentation and limited liberty. Those social "niceties" are not conducive to accomplishing deadly dangerous missions, fielding cohesive organizations, and maintaining discipline (both external and self).
The service is already behaviorally burdened with the increased participation of females in the ranks. This "evolution" has been difficult and perilous to good order and discipline enough. Adding the social and psychological pressure of dealing with the behavioral oddities of open homosexuals might just be the straw that breaks the back of the greatest military force that has existed in history.
My suggestion that, if this travesty is imposed on the military, the non-homosexual part of society refuse to serve is made in the gravest of terms.
The Left (Social/Political/Economic - all the same) has "gotten away with it" for almost a century. They never actually pay the consequences for their "vision". They are always rescued by the Right. The bailouts by Conservatives come with great regularity, but the lesson is never learned.
The Left is parasitic. It exists because its host refuses to suffer the ravages of the cure, but also refuses to die.
In this case the cure is that the military needs to cease to exist due to the lack of voluntary participation by the broader society. Of course this would mean the implementation of a universal and very unpopular draft.
John Galt might be the only solution left.
r/TMF
Dixie Pixie| 6.5.10 @ 6:30PM
Greetings John
Are you really suggesting a sit-down strike by DOD during (Gulf War II), {Yet Another Afghan War} and the continuing [Korean War]. I can just imagine what my old First Sergeant would say to that idea.
----LOL----
Now that is comedy.
James| 6.5.10 @ 3:21PM
TMF blindly states, "The bailouts by Conservatives come with great regularity, but the lesson is never learned."
This pretty much sums up the failure of your entire argument. Your buddy W plunged this country into $5 trillion in debt with reckless spending, and gave your other buddy OBL EXACTLY what he wanted: an endless war against islam designed to drain our treasury, and divide citizen from citizen. It has worked spectacularly.
It is no coincidence that this notion also forms the backbone of the failed GOP "southern strategy."
No one is going to trust the GOP again. They have been on the wrong side of all the important American debates of the modern era, and have paid by loosing more and more of the electorate. The response? Tea party, which represents 20% tops.
TMF gasps loudly, one more time, before it sinks. There is nothing to fear from gays serving openly and proudly in our military.
Libs R Stupid| 6.5.10 @ 4:35PM
"...and have paid by 'loosing' more and more of the electorate." Your poor spelling further undermines your already weak argument, moron.
Margie| 6.6.10 @ 11:20AM
Just another one who thinks Obama/Biden was a better choice than McCain/Palin.
C Bowen| 6.5.10 @ 3:56PM
As much as I agree with the ban, Pro-war conservatives protest too much as the more important issue is women in the military, and banning the practice. Of course, they don't mind fighting elective wars with women protecting them, so they hoot and howl about the gays.
Libs R Stupid| 6.5.10 @ 4:37PM
Conservatives didn't force women on the military--Liberals did, moron. You lie!
Capt G| 6.6.10 @ 9:11AM
Women in combat roles in the military has been an unmitigated disaster. Don't ask the officer corps; ask the NCO's who have to deal with it. The same military that sat by and observed; Muslim whack-job serving as psychologist and officer while advocating jihad, no problem had plenty of PC practice claiming the successful integration of women.
Okay, we've got the ships divided into pitchers and catchers now; do we then have to further divide them into male and female pitchers and catchers. Is that four classifications, or possibly eight? Or do we finally just dump them all into the same berthing space and let 'em sort it out themselves?
Women are not the example for gays in the military unless you want an example of failure. Of course, the irony was hit upon by the inconvenient wag who wrote that DADT is exactly what allows gays to serve in the military.
Margie| 6.6.10 @ 11:23AM
Typical twisting of the facts. Conservatives are not PRO-WAR. They are PRO STRONG MILITARY DEFENSE., numbnuts! (As my Dad would say).
Tim*| 6.5.10 @ 4:37PM
Let's See The Diversity Agenda Here !
Gays , Lesbians , Dog Humpers , Sheep Wranglers , Former Pedophiles,Transvestites , Former Convicted Felons , Former Rapists ,
An Army Of One ?
Libs R Stupid| 6.5.10 @ 4:39PM
How many of our cities will have to be shrouded in mushroom clouds before we learn?
John - TMF| 6.5.10 @ 5:03PM
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls...
Gays serving openly and proudly - eh? Sort of like "In the Navy", and "Macho Man"? Cute suit... Irony... "YMCA" was code for a place to have lots of anonymous homosexual er um relations... It was also a reason for the thunderous exponential spread of GRID (AIDS).
Talking points and selfish motives are all cheap... the lives of homosexuals are a mixed bag of depression, misery, sexual deviance, and venereal disease rates that dwarf the heterosexual world. It also tends to be blindly selfish, and narcissistic. I was kind, factual, and wished to keep the debate on a level worthy of the article.
The imposition of open homosexuality into the US military is a disaster that will destroy the bonds that hold men in intimate care for one another. That care is only possible without the poison of sexual pleasure as a motive. Elan, and Agape are impossible with the specter of Eros.
As to the Bush hate. Compared to The One, Bush was a penny pinching miser.
Talking points are poor substitutes for intelligent debate.
Thanks for the article Stacy it made a boring Saturday interesting and gave me something to think about.
R/The Mighty Fahvaag
Margie| 6.6.10 @ 11:35AM
And don't forget suicide. Sadly many homosexuals cannot bear the consequences of this horrid behavior and what it does to their consciences, and it drives them to this.
They do not even understand why. The world promotes this behavior and has "normalized" it. Homosexuality is nothing more than a case of mistaken identity. It's all in the thinking. When the truth about why it is wrong is explained to a young person considering choosing it, and it is a choice~ they will have the chance to realize that they do not need to go that route. My cousin's young wife "thought" that she suddenly wanted this lifestyle. Soon enough after leaving her beloved husband she fell into a horrible depression and tried killing herself. Now she is sorry, but she has lost her husband and he has moved on. All because of a lie.
When you explain to a young person that, according to God, there will be a great penalty to pay, and that it isn't what He wants for them, out of His love for them~ and that they are able to have right relationships with the opposite sex, they can see some hope in the right direction.
Just because the world approves of something, doesn't make it right. Young people: Do not be deceived!
Dixie Pixie| 6.5.10 @ 6:00PM
One of the major problems of “civilian” (i.e. Liberal) control of the military is the civilians usually are clueless about the reality's of military life. For example the Northeastern Liberal Elite always view the gays as a civil rights issue. They completely ignore the cultural, operational and military moral factors involved. Why should they, the Liberals will not live with the consequences of their policies or have to make the policies work.
Since most of the NE Liberal Elite have not lived the barracks life they have no idea why a military culture has its own reasons for doing things its own special way. In the Liberals arrogance and ideological blindness they have refused to see that gay military force has been tried and failed.
The most notable homosexual military force was the “Sacred Band of Thebes”. The theory was a military force would fight more bravely when the unit is bound by the bonds of love. And it is true the Sacred Band did fight bravely. Unfortunately Sacred Band of Thebes was also military brittle.
The reason is simple, a military unit bounded by love will fight bravely until a certain but unknown percentage of personal are killed, then the unit will abandon its military mission to the higher duty of saving its lovers. At that point military disintegration occurs quickly. My best guess is a causality rate of 10% to 20% will cause unit disintegration. This is versus the observable fact that heterosexual military units have sustained up to 80 to 90% causality rates before unit disintegration occurred.
In short homosexuals in the military have been tried and have found to be the lesser when compared to a purely heterosexual military.
Always remember, in military affairs, second place is usually extinction.
Mimi| 6.5.10 @ 6:22PM
Just a thought.... in the struggle we are dealing with now the enemy is islamic militants....it is known that they have an adversion to homosexuality. Would that put our soldiers in greater danger if they were captured??? Like the Pres. of Iran said: "WE HAVE NO PROBLEM , In OUR COUNTRY... with Homosexuals.... we have NONE!!!!!
KJW| 6.6.10 @ 6:55PM
Mimi, I know of a man, now identifying as ex-gay but apparently who once identified as homosexual, with same-sex attractions, and apparently was quite proud of it.
A British citizen, he once was interviewing a muslim for a job. Seeing that my interview acquaintance was (at that time) gay, the muslim said words to the effect of: "When we get power we're going to kill all of 'you people'."
I didn't ask my acquaintance whether or not the muslim applicant got the job, but my hope was the latter scenario. However, it chilled (quite justifiably) my acquaintance. He was living in a country where, at the time, one could still "do something" (even as simple as terminating a job interview process) to someone who voiced such threats. I wonder if people in places as Iran and Uzbekistan can say the same thing?
matthew s harrison| 6.7.10 @ 1:46PM
Mimi-exactly-there will be grave danger to gays if they are captured-they will be tortured the way Iran tortures, and ultimately kills all gays.
The military in this country has disintegrated into a great big love fest-the opposite of what it is there for, and who should be in it!
There is going to be a mass resignation of officers and NCO's as soon as this bullsh*t goes into play-it will be the end of our safety....
I hope barry and company have a whole lot of gays lined up to enlist-cause when a million or so soldiers don't re-up, and/or resign, we will be naked(no pun intended). We will be in greater danger than ever before.
David| 6.5.10 @ 7:08PM
Now that homosexual behavior must be accepted, how long before other choices that were considered sick and disgusting become just as acceptable? There are group who are watching this very carefully to see how they can make their life styles acceptable. NAMBLA - whose goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships - is one. There are those who would love to see their desires to have sex with little boys and girls. After all, it's all about love isn't it?
It is interesting that while homosexual behavior is "acceptable", having one man married to more than one woman is not (I guess it is because polygamists usually base their lifestyle choice on religion - and we all know how the democrats and progressives view that).
Yosemeti Sam| 6.6.10 @ 12:19AM
" ... the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society ...."
So holds the DC-cloistered inured/intellectually-debauched Will; seemingly - et al ilk.
Yo, scores of millions of HUMAN beings destroyed as part of "evolving standards of decency" - Mr Will?
Yeah, sure - ever maturing society.
On the horizon, no doubt, will come bestiality as part of " the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society ...."
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.6.10 @ 9:57AM
We sure have "matured" beyond "A gentleman does not kiss and tell".......haven't we?
Oldefarte| 6.6.10 @ 12:21PM
The issue is not whether one is hetersexual or homosexual, but rather the flaunting of same upon society. God created all humans with something called FREE WILL, the intention of same was for each human being to determine their own behavour in life. MAN'S LAW [derived from God's NATURAL LAW] restricts such behavour, but if a human being so chooses, he/she/it can disobey said law and face the legal consequences of MAN'S LAW, if any. If however humans disobey God's NATURAL LAW [which forbids homosexuality], the consequences at death are eternal damnation to Hell. The problem with the homosexual community is that they are not [but should be] satisfied with their legal gauranteed freedoms, but rather want to shove their perverted lifestyles down the throats of non-homosexuals. They have now destroyed the Catholic Church because of their insane attitudes, and are now seeking to destoy our military accordingly. Their efforts at legalization of homosexual marriage is an offense against, not only MAN'S LAW, but also it's basis, GOD'S NATURAL LAW!!!!!!
e. marshall fleebe| 6.6.10 @ 2:32PM
I would like to substitute the words "Christian" and "Christianity" everywhere you read "homosexual" or
homosexuality" and see if your so-called principals hold up. What myopic nonsense. God's natural law - HO HO HO. Won't you be surprised when you find out you are destined to spend eternity in the mythological hell to which you enjoy sending your detractors.
Patriot| 6.6.10 @ 4:50PM
I don't think it's going to be us enjoying that "mythological" hell you chortle about, Marshall.
You think Christians are intolerant of your lovely "lifestyle" just wait until those Sharia lovin' Muslims get hold of you and your boytoys. Good luck holding onto your heads!
You're going to be real sorry you destroyed the one civilization that protected your sorry asses.
matthew s harrison| 6.7.10 @ 1:50PM
Well said Patriot! The muslims would like for nothing more than to saw off the heads of gays with dull knives-and we are the only thing standing between them and that end. I would think that they would want to push the liberal psychopaths out of the way-because barry and company agree with castro and che-gays should be jailed in castro's eyes-and they are in Cuba....they will meet a grim and painful end when we have lost control of our once civil society to barry and his muslim pals.
KJW| 6.6.10 @ 6:48PM
Tell you what. If all involved will also agree (and agree to accept public acknowledgment of) the fact that, 10 years after the Human Genome Project first issued their DNA reports*, there is absolutely no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction, the root of "gayness" is either verifiably genetic or inborn...
...then I have no problem either with the issues Will, Krauthammer and company have no problems with.
*Given the improvement in computing and continuous research since Y2K, the Human Genome Project must know a LOT more than they did a decade ago. Still, there's no more verifiable proof from either their group or any other that homosexuality is genetic/inborn and therefore impossible to overcome than there was in the year 2000. Quite the contrary, we'd probably be amazed at how many ex-gay, ex-same-sex-attracted people there are out there...
JP| 6.7.10 @ 8:54AM
Mmmm....either it is Nature or Nurture (biology or the enviorment). If there isn't a gay gene, then people freely choose to be gay; or at the very least are talked or manipulated into it.
For if there was a gay gene, homosexuality could become a thing of the past. Since women freely get abortions for the unborn with downs syndrome, just think what they would do if thier child had the gay gene? I think for once, the progressives would demand restrictions on abortions.
KJW| 6.7.10 @ 4:34PM
JP, on the off chance that you come back to this, you made a thoughtful post. If I may caution you, though - there is an element of choice (actually, multiple choices over a long period of time) that lead to same sex attraction, which is what usually leads one to identify as "gay".
However, these choices are almost always UNCONSCIOUS ones. What follows is a flawed analogy (because the condition I'm describing indeed has apparently been proven to have genetic predisposition while gayness hasn't) but there are similarities.
When one becomes obese, you don't "choose" to become that way. Who would, given all the health risks, the ridicule, etc.? However, we so frequently become obese because of a series of UNCONSCIOUS choices - i.e. having an experience with "comfort food" (i.e. cookies, potato chips, etc.) that turns into an addiction, having one or two negative experiences with exercise that lead us to avoid it, choosing to be sedentary in front of the computer or television for long periods of time, etc.
If you do this, odds are much higher that you'll become obese. You didn't CHOOSE to become that way, but you became that way BECAUSE of your choices. Make sense?
(And there is a very similar trait of those same-sex attracted and, frequently, those who are quite obese. Over and over, you'll find that both groups, at one time, tend to have been emotionally needy. This condition can lead to overeating of "comfort food". And it can definitely open the door for conditions where same-sex attraction can develop.)
Crusader| 6.7.10 @ 12:18PM
I always wondered if there WERE a "gay gene," how the heck does it get passed on? Certainly not through, um, homosexual relations. You can't have a "gay gene" AND believe in evolution or "survival of the fittest" as the mere presence of a gay gene defeats the theory of "survival of the fittest," doesn't it?
I mean, is it not true that if the gay gene was eventually passed on to every living human, then humans would die out a generation after that? How is that "survival of the fittest?"
Maybe I need an egghead Haaaaahvad grad to help me understand.
Margie| 6.7.10 @ 12:33PM
Nah, don't trust an egghead. They're too busy being better than God, and fighting against Him. God, who says He will throw you into Hell if you are found still practicing the lifestyle, and don't repent of it (turn away), before your time is up on this here earth.
God? Who's He? Oh, why He's the one who created us and He gets to say what's right and what's wrong.. guess we'd better listen up, hmm? I suppose it'd be for our own good that He warns us, out of His love for us. He wants ALL to get to Heaven. That's why He warns us!
Tim| 6.7.10 @ 12:48PM
Yes, but He hasn't hired any K street lobbyists, so what does He expect?
Margie| 6.7.10 @ 1:02PM
Very funny there, good Tim.
Mike M| 6.7.10 @ 8:45AM
The sad truth is the Military, usually in combat or stressful situation lie at sea 12 months, uses the military members as the BLOOD SUPPLY. they don't have a stockpile of Blue Cross blood on hand.
Now ask yourself if you needed blood, would you want it from someone who frequesnt some bathhouse in New York or San Francisco?
JP| 6.7.10 @ 8:49AM
Oh yes, the old schtick of "there've been countless gays who served in the military since Valley Forge. And, of course, those that did serve kept thier desires to themselves. Nothing like the threat of the hangmen's noose or hard labor to keep the discipline. The military has had all types of felons, adulterers, alcoholics, larcenists, and yes gays (Churchhill once said that the Royal Navy was built on the "traditions" of Rum, Sodomy, and the Whip).
But adulterers, thieves, and alcoholics are not demanding special dispensations. And we all know what will follow once Congress repeals DADT. A flurry of civil rights cases will bury the federal courts. And when it is all over, our military will resemble the Village People. But the question will remain, "Who will fight our wars?"
Perhaps we will resort to mercenaries.