Showing posts with label GBLT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GBLT. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

anti-bullying promotes murder

keeping it classy... Dan Savage, of the well publicised "It Gets Better" campaign, has a problem with bullying... i mean, Dan is a bully... suprised?... me too.

but apparently, this is nothing new... he has a long-standing quarrel with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)... so great is his hatred, he has resorted to cyber-bullying the man... there is an entire website devoted to defining the Senator's last name as, well, something disgusting... skip the quote if you prefer.
Santorum: (n) The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex
you were warned.

well, Dan Savage has decided to air some more grievances on the Bill Maher show (which is the usual repository for this kind of behavior)... but Savage took it to new lows; even for Maher... Dan Savage has decided that he wishes all Republicans were "f--kin' dead"... really?... this is the same guy who says:
Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are.

everyone, except Republicans, that is...

but, in typical Liberal fashion, Dan Savage seems to think if you apologize for something, it's okay:
It was a stupid, rude, thoughtless remark. I regret it and I retract it and I apologize to anyone watching.


well, it's not okay... that is not something which should be tolerated... and to come from someone who preaches tolerance, it is even more unacceptable... and to compound the problem, the mainstream media will give him a pass; one that they give no one else... and the apology is false, too... if he meant it, he'd take down that horrible, cyber-bullying website about Santorum... but he doesn't mean it... he is just saying it... non meus culpa... what a liar.

this jerk has started a movement to help the helpless, and for that he should be commended... but for his own hate-speech, he should be publicly condemned by those within the "It Gets Better" movement, as well as the LGBT community, as a whole.

Dan Savage wishes all Republicans were dead. - MRC

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Don't ask, don't tell - what's your option

here's a subject i'm loath to discuss... homosexuals... it's not that i have issues for or against them... but it always becomes a personal discussion where feelings get hurt and no resolution is found... but this is becoming the topic of many mainstream issues, and i feel this needs some light put upon it...

today's topic is "gays in the military"... again, a sensitive subject for many on both sides... "straights" oppose it for various reasons, many of them of personal nature... gays support it for opposite reasons, but these reasons are also very personal... so, let's discuss one portion of the issue, without trying to get off into any quasi-moral or religious debates... let's discuss fraternization.
fraternization: fraternus - "brotherly"; to associate on friendly terms; mingle, consort, mix
Dictionary: fraternization
the military has a severe dislike of fraternization... typically, it is meant to discourage favoritism or discord between officers and enlisted personnel... however, with the introduction of females into the military, fraternization has taken on a much broader meaning... members of equal rank, but opposite sexes, are segregated... while their MOS may be the same, and they may work hand-in-hand, they do not mingle, mix, or consort with one another (fraternize) outside their work scopes... in more plain terms, they don't bunk together...

this is not to say they don't date... members of equal rank may see one another socially... however, the military does not promote by social-group... if you are promoted to a rank above your significant other, you have placed yourself in a position where favoritism may be shown, one to another... this is natural between partners; this is illegal to the UCMJ... what yesterday was harmless, today is a court-marshaling offense...

fraternization between equals can still cause disorder and havoc in a military regiment... there is nothing wrong with well qualified women being in front-line positions... if they can do the job, let them do it... but how do you handle the known issue of fraternization?... by placing two (assuming heterosexual) people of the same gender in life-or-death situations, they naturally form a strong bond... what happens to that bond when they are opposite gender in the same situation?... that bond can easily progress to more... and then decisions of the two are compromised... they are no longer soldiers, but lovers... loyalties can get confused...

the simple solution to such a complex issue is to keep the genders separate... but what can the military do when gender is removed?... what do you do when your brigade has GBLT members?... at what point does the personal choices of some become greater than the good of the whole?... i'm not going to argue whether it's a personal choice or not... let's assume for this argument that it is a genetic/physical manifestation... fine... what do you do about having homosexuals serving in quarters?... working/fighting/bunking together?... do you attempt separation, like they do with male/female soldiers?... is there a "gay brigade"?... (a horrible term, but it keeps bouncing around in my head)...

separation doesn't solve the problem of fraternization... it actually compounds it... it places soldiers in a situation where fraternization is difficult to escape... where, at some point, it may become "normal"... the military unit is no longer fighting for God and Country, but for each other... it breeds dissension in the ranks of the unit... will a sargent send his/her lover out on point, or to charge a fortification, or first into a tunnel?... when does fraternization between individuals endanger others?...

and to touch on the "personal choice" issue for a moment, at what point does the Transgender get introduced?... i'm not talking those who have medically reconstructed themselves... but those who have decided that they prefer the garb of the opposite gender... do they get special treatment?... do we issue unisex uniforms?... and if we do, does that mean that the heterosexual females give up their right to their femininity?... or do we put the men in kilts and have a Scottish Brigade?...

the issue at hand is greater than even what i've discussed here... it's all well and good that homosexuals want to be treated equally and fairly, but what do the rest of us have to lose to give them this modicium of equality?...

and where do we stop?