Trying to get to sleep last night, I turned on CSPAN, the reliable electronic sedative, there to stumble upon Senator Carl Levin and his minions of the Senate Armed Services Committee grilling the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and other military mucky-mucks on the titilating subject of gays in the military.
Triggered by President Obama's State of the Union call for the abolition of the so-called "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" policy, the Senators waxed poetic about gay rights, gay patriotism and gay heroism on the battlefield.
Got me to thinking.
The third edition of Roget's Thesaurus, published in 1995, calls the word "gay" an adjective and provides four classifications of synonyms:
1) jolly, jovial, merry
2) bright, colorful
3) homosexual, oriented toward one's own sex
4) licentious, dissapated, wanton
Since 1995, our dynamic English language has invented a noun, "gay," which generally means a homosexual or homophile, but carries the additional connotation of openness.
The distinction between the adjective and the noun is critical to the political issue, although none of the distinguished talking heads on CSPAN seemed aware of it.
If one is gay (adjective) he or she is oriented toward his or her own sex, but if one is a gay (noun) he or she is not only homosexual, he or she is out of the closet, overt, known, and acknowledged to be oriented toward his or her own sex.
The present "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy allows gay people to serve in the armed forces, and the witnesses testified that there are many such persons currently serving quite honorably in all the branches of our armed forces.
But that policy is not enough for today's aggressive homosexual community and their political compatriots. They want their fellow soldiers and sailors to know that they are oriented toward persons of their own sex.
Why?
Why in the name of all that is fair, decent and honorable would any man or woman want his or her fellow service men and women to know that he or she has a disposition toward felatio or buggery?
Do they really intend, by demanding abolition of "Don't Ask" to empower or even require the military services to inquire into every recruit's sexual orientation, and label or classify them accordingly?
Do they really intend, by demanding abolition of "Don't Tell" to require every recruit to disclose his or her innermost, personal, sexual feelings and urges?
I would be quite surprised if the introduction of females into the ranks of foot soldiers has meant that male and female troops now bivouwac together, shower together, or deficate in community facilities.
Military discipline often trumps the right of privacy, but there are some core personal matters that touch upon basic human dignity. Sex is one of them.
Do Senator Levin and his votaries contemplate constructing of a third and a fourth latrine on every army base and naval station?
Or do they intend to indoctrinate every recruit with the willingness to strip down in the presence of colleagues who openly view them as objects of sexual arousal?
If so, I would be one American who would not want to see his son or grandson among the few, the proud and the brave.
So you were up at 3:42 a.m. blogging about falatio, buggary, and all things "gay"? This is ony possible if you are emotionally involved in the issue yourself. Nobody cares so deeply about an issue that does not affect him personally.
ReplyDeleteYou have unwittingly betrayed yourself. Is it YOU who struggles with his own repressed homosexuality? Or is it someone you pretent to love but loathe because you have corrupted your mind with religion? It is one or the other, and you are a liar if you deny it.
Your pornographic musings are the product of a sick mind. Not because any act you describe is sick, but because your obsession with the sex lives of others is sick.
Your writing is clever in a sophomoric way. But as my mother always cautioned me, "the devil has a sharp tongue."
May you experience in the next life the pain you have caused others in this one.
From an old soldier,
ReplyDeleteRecently, I was asked how I felt about gays in the military. Having spent 28 years in service to our country I immediately responded that I was comfortable with the don’t ask don’t tell policy.
However, after a few minutes of reflection, I added that I would prefer that gays not be allowed to serve. In a line of work where your life can depend on the judgment and character of your foxhole buddy, you should not need to worry about the judgment and character of your buddy.
Quite simply, I believe that a gay orientation is evidence of a character flaw and poor judgment. Sitting in my fox hole, I have more important things to worry about than the character of my buddy.
When I decided to comment on the oldjudgesays blog, I had only intended to ask why he had identified the senior military officers testifying to the committee as “military mucky-mucks”. I am sure the oldjudge can pull out a benign definition of a mucky-muck, but the truth is, that in practice, the term is used to convey a negative connotation. My hunch is that this was exactly what the oldjudge had intended. Again, having been a senior military officer, I was taken aback by and quite dismayed by this generalization from oldjudgesays.
Now that I have said what I came here to say, boy was I surprised when I read the stinging reply from ReasonVsEvil. Goodness – I did not see much reason in this diatribe from ReasonVsEvil. Perhaps ReasonVsEvil should change his or her name to Evil-in-bed-with-Evil.
Any discussion of gays seems to attract vitriolic commentary. I asked serious questions: Does anyone, gay or nay, want the army to ask recruits about their sexual orientation? Does anyone favor requiring every recruit to disclose their sexual orientation?
ReplyDeleteInstead of a serious answer, I get a personal diatribe.
Too bad. Rational dialog sometimes helps solve problems.