Ex-Gay Watch

Thank you to all who serve, including homosexuals. This vote needed to happen and pass and somehow Obama did it. Please do not forget that thepresident spent so much politicasl capital to get this through, just as he promised. Please LGBT community do not forget that or him in 2012. Thank you.

Eight Republicans sided with the mostly Democratic call for repeal.

That’s the biggest thing that amazes me. As intentionally obstructionist as they’ve been over the past two years, to have eight Republicans break ranks, on this issue especially, makes it seem like it was a landslide victory.

Not that this is completely over yet, but what a kick in gut to the extremists.
–
Well, Joe Dallas*, It looks like you won’t be needing this scurrilous allegation anymore:

Because of the obvious advantages of intercepting and understanding terrorists’ communications, language specialists’ skills are critical and not easily replaced.

It could be argued that these specialists knew of the ban before enlisting, then speculated that had they opted not to enlist it’s likely that other specialists who were heterosexual would have enlisted in their place.

That quote makes Joe Dallas look not only incredibly stupid, but callous as well. I would expect something like that to come from Peter LaBarbera or someone else at the bottom of the barrel.

I think Bryan Fischer over at AFA has the best quote from the looney right on this:

The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours.

They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.

Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.

I think there’s a certain special forces soldier that the President referenced during the signing that can have a conversation with Bryan Fischer. Somehow I don’t think he’ll appreciate hearing Mr. Fischer thinks the Army is emasculated by his presence.

Actually Dan, he’s managed to top himself (so to speak)

Somebody cache this page QUICKLY before it disappears:

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501429

Thanks, Boo, there were some real keepers in there.

If a homosexual signs up now, he’s stuck with the whole magilla (sic). Go to your superior officer now and say, hey, I’m a flaming homosexual, I hate the army, let me out of here, the superior officer will say, tough darts, those days are gone. You’re stuck with us now, Nancy-boy.

So, who’s sorry now?

This one took the cake:

Now, they will discover to their dismay, they’re back to having equal rights instead of special rights.

Bottom line: be careful what you ask for. You just may get it.

I’ve read the report he’s talking about, it was overwhelmingly in favor of repeal. Color me surprised that Fischer, et al, would distort the data. The National Review made essentially the same clueless statements (without the gratuitous tripe that comes standard with Fischer). This one really seems to stick in their craw for some reason.

It sticks in their craw for one major reason: It threatens their sense of masculinity.

One of the major themes I’ve seen from the religious right, and the ex-gay movement is that homosexuality is less than masculine. To be gay means you are lacking in masculinity. An Army that has big, strong special forces soldiers who are the meanest killers on the battlefield, and who happen to be gay, is a direct threat to this world view. We cannot be gay and masculine at the same time, and to be proven otherwise by an open and accepting military threatens their world view in a way equalled by few other issues.

I appreciate what you say, Dan. I think it’s a factor that too often goes unnoticed.

From Wiki, hypermasculinity:

oppressed groups challenged by socially constructed views of their communities to assimilate hypermasculine images and attitudes.

This is especially true when part of the oppressive conditions include societal attitudes, laws, and practices that prohibit or change the tradition and norms of the marginalized group.

Given that, it’s no wonder they (the guys, anyway) consider themselves to be “oppressed.”

How dare society consider “Nancy-boys” to be equal to me!