A Global Laughingstock

Cliff Kincaid says that if we allow gay people to serve openly in the military, we'll have to allow transgendered people to serve openly in the military. Which means that we'll have to allow men to wear frilly little lacy things when they go forth to fight the Hun. Which means the Hun will laugh at us. Which means they'll win, in some obscure but frightening sense, no matter how many thermobaric shells the Barney Frank Brigade lobs into their subterranean lairs.

And that's not all:

While it is tempting to think that the only damage that would be done would be the turning of our once-feared military into a global laughingstock, there are important national security and health implications to the homosexualization of the Armed Forces.

You think men in dresses is funny, soldier? Well, you'll be laughing out the other side of your piehole when you get splashed with faggot blood and catch Teh AIDS.

[A] profusely bleeding gay soldier could threaten those caring for him on the battlefield, ultimately taking the lives of his fellow soldiers....

A position of opening the military to individuals with a documented history of exposure to deadly diseases, when there is no guaranteed way to screen their infected blood out of the blood supply, is obviously reckless and irresponsible.

It's worse than Kincaid lets on. Suppose a sniper's bullet traveled through a gay man's testicles and then lodged in a straight man's lower intestine? That would give him double AIDS, at the very least!

Being as the MSM is owned and operated by gays and gay-fanciers, they're naturally hiding the Awful Truth about "gay blood on the battlefield." Instead, they insist that gays have a right to serve openly, in dresses, despite being infected with the deadly gay plague of homosexual AIDS.

But the thing is, if DADT were repealed, most straight soldiers would immediately quit the military, leaving the gays in charge of everything. That means we'd need a new draft to replenish it, and that means straight soldiers would be forced to serve under queers, if you get my drift. It brings a whole new meaning to the term "recruitment."

They will demand sexual favors to rise in the ranks, creating even more problems down the road. It is a recipe for national suicide.

Indeed. Consider the sad plight of Israel. And Great Britain. And Australia. And all the other countries that allow gay people to serve openly, and are therefore doomed to die of AIDS any day now.

And think on this: How can Obama claim to be against obesity when he wants to give the US military AIDS by mandating risky practices like "bare-backing," which is a deadly and also dangerous form of gay sex in which one gay man gives another AIDS on purpose (assuming he can find one who doesn't already have it)? What's the point of cutting down on junk food if you're just gonna catch AIDS* and die, thanks to "the Hollywood-backed and well-funded homosexual lobby"?

In summation, we mustn't allow gay veterans to pervert the meaning of their own sacrifice by granting them the rights they fought for. For as a wise man once said, "AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS!"

*AIDS!

The Sovereign Arbiters of Reality

Bill Murchison takes a swig of Dr. Kilmer's Swamp-Root Tonic, squints, spits, hitches his thumbs behind his suspenders, and reacts to Iowa's embrace of Homofascism:

You really can't have "gay marriage," you know, irrespective of what a court or a legislature may say.

You can have something some people call gay marriage because to them the idea sounds worthy and necessary, but to say a thing is other than it is, is to stand reality on its head, hoping to shake out its pockets.

Such is the supposed effect of the Iowa Supreme Court's declaration last week that gays and heterosexuals enjoy equal rights to marital bliss. Nope. They don't and won't, even if liberal Vermont follows Iowa's lead.

As anti-gay agitprop goes, this is fairly tepid stuff. You fags may be winning the right to life and liberty...but you will pursue happiness in vain, bwahaha!

Basically, Murchison's theory hails from that ghoul-haunted hinterland where wingnut theology meets Evolutionary Psychology:

The human race -- sorry ladies, sorry gents -- understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and projection [sic]. It has always been so. It will always be so, even if every state Supreme Court pretended to declare that what isn't suddenly is. Life does not work in this manner.

What he's getting at here is that teh queers can't have offspring. Unless they decide to get pregnant, or get someone else pregnant. Or they adopt, or have kids from a previous marriage, or something like that.

Since it's the alleged lack of children that allegedly damns gay marriage to be a demonic imitation of the allegedly real thing, where does that leave childless straight couples?

At a cheap motel on the outskirts of Hell, wallowing in a viscid mélange of spermatocidal foam, saliva, and Pina Colada-flavored lube:

Marriage, as historically defined, across all religious and non-religious demarcations, is about children -- which is why a marriage in which the couple deliberately repudiates childbearing is so odd a thing, to put the matter as generously as possible.

I think it'd be a good deal more generous to say that whether or not people have kids is their own fucking business, regardless of what some self-appointed Womb Sheriff who looks like Father Jack Hackett has to say about it. But that's because I suffer from "disjointed individualism," which you can distinguish from the good kind of individualism — the kind that "goes Galt" because poor people aren't being turned away at the emergency room, for instance — by the fact that it's soft on nonprocreative sex between consenting adults.

Murchison's entire argument, here, hinges on the idea that gay marriage is "definitionally sterile." Mary Cheney, for one, might not agree. But in any case, you don't have to be a member of the Iowa Supreme Court to see that restricting marriage rights to people who can and are willing to have children would inconvenience an awful lot of heterosexual couples.

As theo-juridical overreaching goes, though, it's not that much worse than the conditions that actually obtain.

Current legal prohibitions pertaining to something called "gay marriage" don't address the condition called homosexuality or lesbianism. A lesbian or homosexual couple is free to do pretty much as they like, so long as it doesn't "like" too much the notion of remaking other, older ideas about institutions made, conspicuously, for others. Marriage, for instance.

Alright, then. A gay couple is free to do as they like, as long as they don't expect to enjoy the legal rights afforded to couples who aren't gay. But this doesn't mean that the law discriminates against gays; it's just that the law was written specifically for normal people, which is an entirely different matter, as anyone who knows How Life Works can see.

Murchison goes on to acknowledge that gay people actually can have children, sort of. But because they can't marry, the result is an illegitimate child. And illegitimacy has a "widely recognized potential for enhancing child abuse and psychological disorientation." Therefore, it's much better for parents to be married, even though marriage is admittedly vulnerable to "all those imperfections that flow from the participation of imperfect humans."

Which is why gay marriage must remain illegal, even though it doesn't actually exist whether it's legal or not.

That's clear enough, isn't it?

In summation, what the Iowa decision shows is that "judges should generally step back from making social policy," because no law is truly binding "unless it corresponds with the way things are at the deepest level, human as well as divine."

And besides:

[P]eople who set themselves up as the sovereign arbiters of reality are -- would "nutty" be the word?

It works for me.