Gay sex = The new reefer madness
The reason why Reefer Madness was so a-durn funny was that it portrayed all stoners as sadistic murderers and rapists. Of course, anyone who’s ever hung out with potheads before knows that they’re more likely to fall asleep with their head stuck inside a bag of potato chips than they are to hurt anyone.
I think some of our modern conservative friends are starting to see teh ghey in the same way they used to see The Demon Weed. Witness Elaine Donnelly’s assertion that letting gay people serve in the military will inevitably result in torture and prisoner abuse:
Ok, now how are we going to deal with four different sexual groups, say in Special Operations summaries. How’s that going to work? Or are we going to have the kind of military — and he clearly suggests this — he says yes, we have women in the military. We all support women in the military. However, he says that everything has been going on just fine without incident. Umm, what was that Abu Ghraib scandal all about? It started out as misconduct between men and women and then it steadily deteriorated into abuse of prisoners. The common denominator is lack of discipline. Once you break down discipline, good order and discipline and morale, everything that’s required for unit cohesion, you undermine the culture and the strength of the armed forces. This man obviously doesn’t get that.
Me confused.
Shouldn’t the increased likelihood of torture incidents be a reason for these guys to support repealing DADT?
UPDATE: I don’t want to jinx anything, but if Obamee really does succeed in getting DADT repealed, it’ll be the first time in a while where I can say, “So that’s why I voted for you!”
Oh FUCK THEM. Abu Ghraib was not a lack of discipline, it was soldiers following orders from on high. It would be evil enough to try to pin ‘bad apples’ on gays or women in the military, but these weren’t even ‘bad apples’ in the first place.
Abu Garumph was a bad thing only when they need it to be a bad thing.
So stripping male prisoners down to their underwear and putting them in weird sexual positions was standard heterosexual behavior, something that will be “broken down” if we repeal DADT?
And can’t someone Photoshop a colonial wig on this lady or something? Sheesh!
Once you break down discipline, good order and discipline and morale, everything that’s required for unit cohesion, you undermine the culture and the strength of the armed forces.
Methinks she is going in the direction of “note that this includes electing a soldier-hating liberal leftist Commie Democrat as President” with this as well. Also.
The poor dear just doesn’t want our military to be like Yurp’s, or, god forbid, Israel’s:
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/military_culture_eur.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html
And can’t someone Photoshop a colonial wig on this lady or something? Sheesh!
Maybe a hand holding a lemon next to her mouth.
First you let gays serve in the military without being thrown out for being who they are. Next, you’ve got the military ass-piling captured prisoners in hellish detention centers. Clearly this is a direct progression of causality.
“The creatures outside looked from Elaine Donnelly to their collection of applehead dolls, and from their collection of applehead dolls to Elaine Donnelly, and from Elaine Donnelly to their collection of applehead dolls again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
So let me take a run at this:
If we repealed DADT, it would cause things like the abuse at Abu Ghraib to happenn…no, wait…
If we repealed DADT, things like Abu Ghraib would be worse because sadistic gay-sex tortures would have been used against prisoners…
No, OK, I got this…If we repealed DADT the gay-sex torture wouldn’t have been allowed because it might have offended the sensibilities of gay soldiers…
No, if we repealed DADT the gay-sex torture wouldn’t have been ironic like it actually was, because gay soldiers might have become aroused and demanded to be tied up and piled in naked homo pyramids…
No wait, here it is–if we repealed DADT the undisciplied gay soldiers would have tastefully redecorated Abu Ghraib, which would have made the gay-sex torture less attractive, although more aesthetically appealing…
Never mind. I don’t get it.
First they came to recruit gays in the military, and I did not speak out —because I was not a gay;
Then they came to recruit liberals in the military, and I did not speak out —because I was not a liberal;
Then they came to recruit feminists in the military, and I did not speak out —because I was not a feminist;
Then they came to recruit me—and I stopped war mongering, gay bashing, whining and complaining and soiled my cheetos stained underpants, realizing that gays, liberals and feminists were all trained to use the guns, and friendly fire still happens.
Is that the Swankster’s sister?
Center For Military Readiness
That sounds totally gay.
Never mind. I don’t get it.
She’s saying that allowing women into the military caused discipline to break down, which is what led to Abu Ghraib. I believe it all started when that temptress Lynndie England tempted that upright, studly Charles Graner with an apple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abu_Ghraib_53.jpg
Of course, anyone who’s ever hung out with potheads before knows that they’re more likely to fall asleep with their head stuck inside a bag of potato chips than they are to hurt anyone.
Potheads suffocating themselves with bags is an attack on “American citizens”. Same as when we were supposed to be outraged that the nefarious members of the Weather Underground killed… themselves.
Nice with the Abu Ghraib comparison, Cruella. In her quest to eliminate teh evil buttsecks, she’s trying to snare women in the trap, too.
@commie athiest: Yeah, it does–sorta like “foxhole”.
That is the crux of it, and also the root of opposition to women in the military, and earlier opposition to non-white people in the military. Hell, the Romans worried about non-rich people in the military.
To many people, the military represents power. If black people and women and gay people can hold military power as equals, why should they hold subservient roles in the rest of society? The old rationale was that white men (or rich men, in ancient times) were providing the protection, so they deserved the perks. The links between desegregation movements in the military during WWII and the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s have been well documented.
But Elaine needn’t worry. These days the military is just a mercenary force for the rich, not a citizen-soldier pillar of democracy. You don’t fight for equality anymore, you buy it. We already have gay teachers, weddings, and politicians. While Elaine is busy trying to keep the homos from shoving their agenda down her throat, we’ve already come in through the back door up to her tonsils.
Of course, anyone who’s ever hung out with potheads before knows that they’re more likely to fall asleep with their head stuck inside a bag of potato chips than they are to hurt anyone.
funny cuz it’s TRUE!!
Not only am I confused about why Elaine dislikes Abu Gharib (at this moment), but the rest of her logic cloud (honestly it can’t be called a train) makes no sense either.
“Or are we going to have the kind of military — and he clearly suggests this — he says yes, we have women in the military. ” Five minutes and repeated readings and I can’t figure out what it says. What kind of military are you talking about Elaine? It’s like a literal translation from Quecha through Eastern Mongolian through German to English.
While Elaine is busy trying to keep the homos from shoving their agenda down her throat, we’ve already come in through the back door up to her tonsils.
From that picture, I would guess that her back door has been welded shut.
From that picture, I would guess that her back door has been welded shut.
How can you tell? Is it the backlog of shit spewing out her mouth?
“Hell, the Romans worried about non-rich people in the military.”
Maybe we should go back to only allowing rich people of the correct color serve. Then again, the Roman example undermines my idea that there would be fewer wars if only the wealthy could serve. Then again, that was a completely different government system…
Yeah, let’s let the richies fight their own wars and earn their own profiteering spoils.
She looks a bit like Jim Carrey’s Grinch, don’t you think?
Who is this woman, and who the fuck ever decided that she knows anything about “military readiness”?
So, Madame Grinchface is suggesting that the most highly disciplined and motivated soldiers in the world would descend into an uncontrollable fuckfest if they served with people of the gender that they sexually preferred? Or is that said more out of hope than in anger? Elaine, baby, there are websites out there for people like you.
YES.
Holy shit! Am I halucinating or did she really just say that having women in the military is fine but that temptress, Lyndie Englund, seduced those poor men into torturing Iraqis. Cause, I swear, that’s what it sounded like she said.
We’ve gone from “Torture is okay” to “this is not torture” to “these were just bad apples” to “these bad apples were GAY GAY GAY!”
“Yeah, let’s let the richies fight their own wars and earn their own profiteering spoils.”
Well one plus to this is that they’d be more willing to open up the ranks of “teh rich” because as it is there aren’t enough of ’em to conquer Costa Rica.
Ok, now how are we going to deal with four different sexual groups, say in Special Operations summaries. How’s that going to work?
Now, factor in furries, bisexuals, Na’vi fetishists (a new group), asexuals… this shit’s getting way too complicated
I wish I was rich enough to conquer a few acres of Costa Rica. Pura Vida!
Bitter Scribe:
Elaine Donnelly has no military experience whatsoever. She’s completely unqualified to speak on military issues, and her claims have no merit. I’ve seen footage of her testifying, making preposterous statements, and actually getting laughed at-loudly-by military servicemen.
She’s a bigoted wackjob, plain and simple.
All international disputes should be settled with arm-wrestling contests. A true arms race (boom tish)
man, if those pursed lips and hairstyle don’t spell prude, I don’t know what does.
I agree with the update. Don’t ask don’t tell is fucking ridiculous. The argument that it would break down discipline is transparent bullshit covering the right’s own prejudices, but if you must rebut it, I’d point out that
1) like universal health care, everyone else in the free world has it and their armies work just fine (including the State of Israel, and when the Goddamn Israelis are more liberal than you are, it’s time to look in the mirror and ask where the fuck you went wrong).
2) the “discipline” problems we’d have from integrating gays are nothing compared with the “discipline” problems when we desegregated the military in 1947. You really think good white Southern boys felt any better having blacks in their units than good evangelical boys do today? Of course it screwed up military discipline for a few years. Then the military grew up, got over it and was a better place for it.
Also, the 1947 desegregation model is exactly what they’re afraid of – that American soldiers will be forced to accept openly gay members, then they’ll discover that gay people aren’t so bad after all, and the military will go from being a bastion of the Christian Right to being a shining example of tolerance for society at large. The psychos don’t want that, which is why they make such a huge deal out of what ought to be a pretty simple matter.
May I ask a serious, non-snark question here? It’s something I’ve wondered about for a long while, especially through the asinine “debate” over health-care reform. To whit:
Why do Republicans always behave as if everything in America and related to America occurs in a vacuum?
For instance, some form of nationalized health care exists in every advanced country except for the (formerly advanced, sadly decayed under decades of Republican mis-management) USA. The Republicans behave as if this is the most scandalous & socialized thing EVER EVER EVER and it will destroy the very fabric of Betsy Ross’s flag. Thing is, nationalized health exists in every advanced country already & it hasn’t destroyed any of them yet, has it?
Likewise, take the military in the UK, where gays can openly serve. Um. Is this a problem for them? An issue? Are there many questions debated over furrowed brows of worry about teh ghey in foxholes? Does it catch? Etc etc? If the American military is so concerned about this, why not approach their opposite numbers in England & discuss it?
“Why do Republicans always behave as if everything in America and related to America occurs in a vacuum?”
I think there’s something about being the world’s No. 1 superpower that goes right to your head and makes you think that because you’re the best, you have nothing to learn from all these little pussies who couldn’t make it as far as you did. (By all accounts, the Brits, Spaniards and Byzantines were huge assholes too in their day).
I also think Americans are far more insulated from the rest of the world than people in most countries. It’s true in terms of media, in terms of how often we travel, and in terms of how many links in general we have with the outside world. But that’s not as important as the hubris that comes from being at the top of the food chain, IMO. Stupid pride accounts for more of our problems than I have time to list here.
“Once you break down discipline, good order and discipline and morale”
assuming “good order” = “discipline” you have “once you break down discipline, discipline, dicipline and morale…”
Girl loves her some discipline. Wasn’t that what those naked prisoners in the pile were all about?
So according to Nurse Ratched’s daughter, Teh ghey in the military = More abuse of prisoners.
My God. When 90,000 teabaggers march on the Pentagon to demand the repeal of DADT, we may have to … [gulp] Thank this dumb bitch.
Say, Chris, the Goddamn Israelis are supposed to be more liberal than the Goddamn Americans. (Two words: kibbutz and moshav.) Dunno why the neocons moved in and took over; once we figure that out, we’ll get back to you.
After all the times the USAF has lowered its bar for membership in the past few years, sometimes arguably perilously so, continuing to insist on arbitrarily drawing the line over who the potential soldier prefers to bump uglies with seems … well … quite perverse.
“…what they’re afraid of – that American soldiers will be forced to accept openly gay members, then they’ll discover that gay people aren’t so bad after all…”
There are indications that the rank-and-file are well ahead of the brass and the politicians on this. While the multiple of anecdote isn’t data, I’ve read multiple accounts of gays who were thrown out but who said that their squad-mates knew and didn’t care or whose squad-mates said the same thing to the press.
To me it’s inevitable that gays will soon be able to serve openly. I just wish the brass and the politicos would quit with the hand-wringing and get it taken care of.
RE: “…he says yes, we have women in the military. We all support women in the military. However, he says that everything has been going on just fine without incident….”
SEE: 1/3rd of Women in US Military Raped | NEWS JUNKIE POST, 01/26/10 (EXCERPT) According to NPR, “In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.”…..
SOURCE – http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/