Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Colin Powell Calls for Review of DADT, But Not Its Repeal

Jim Burroway

July 5th, 2009

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said this morning that the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy he helped create should be revisited. He refused to call for its repeal however:

I was withholding judgment because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president, and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made,” he added. “It is not just a matter of old generals who, you know, are just too high-bound. There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this, and I think all of those issues should be illuminated.

Does anyone have any idea what those “complicated issues” might be? Does anyone think that having gays and lesbians serve in the military is at all complicated? I mean, after all, they exist everywhere else in civilian life, and they are increasingly serving in the military with the full knowledge of their fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen. So what are they afraid of?

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Bruno
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

I think the “complicated issues” are the same ridiculous ones the old brass have been putting out there for years about morale, etc. We have to remember that even if Powell says it’s not about a generation gap, it is, and he’s on the wrong side of that gap.

Pero
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

The issue is not whether or not they can do the job. The issue is their personal safety IN the military. The “brass” have no way of controlling the actions of others who may “fear” their gay fellow soldiers. Until the time comes when gay soldiers are safe from their compatriots then the whole DADT policy will remain. I would be willing to die for my country but not because of the ignorance and/or irrational fear of a fellow soldier. We can all bitch about how terrible it is but, to me, if it means one gay man won’t survive within his own unit then the military doesn’t deserve what we can bring to it.
One would think it would piss soldiers off to be fighting for US citizens who aren’t allowed to fight for them. (It probably does piss of a majority of ‘em.) Imagine our soldiers sitting and watching a CNN report over “Pride Week” with all of us waving our flags and shakin’ our booties celebrating what they dedicate their lives to defend. All the gain, none of the pain. It would piss me off.

Cthulhu's Quill
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

“Colim Power”?
That’s a knock-off if i’ve ever heard one.

Matt
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Pero, you made a very good point- the notion that personal safety would be an issue for a bit. The August Provost murder (and other such incidents) should serve as a reminder that there ARE a few nutjobs (or maybe more than a few) in our nation’s armed forces who would do the same.

Something worth checking out would be what sort of statistics there are on incidents of assault/harrassment/etc of black servicemembers once the armed forces were desegregated.

Timothy (TRiG)
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Colim Power? Is this some in-joke I’m unaware of?

TRiG.

Richard W. Fitch
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

“Colim” just means – fat fingers – I think. ;)

John
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Pero- I take great offense to your comment. Gay soldiers don’t need to be protected from the big bad homophobes. They’re grown adults, and the reason why your argument isn’t used very often is because gay soldiers are perfectly capable of dealing with others who may be homophobic.

Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Oh good lord! Between a bandaged finger and a spell-checker run amuck, this isn’t my day.

tavdy79
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

The British MOD, whose servicemen and women have been serving alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan for most of the past decade, has had gays serving openly since 2000, and yet it would appear that the Pentagon has never inquired of the British commanders how the policy is working in practice. After all, if they’d done so I greatly doubt they would be quite so opposed to the repeal of DADT.

One has to assume they have actively avoided such conversations for fear that the answers might not satisfy their prejudices, in the same way that evangelicals actively ignore solid scientific evidence that directly disproves their lies, yet are so easily fooled by con-artists like Paul Cameron.

There is a saying that military intelligence is a contradiction in terms, but I think that ignoring obvious evidence in order to support a prejudice is beyond mere stupidity, it is a character trait which could needlessly endanger lives. It is, after all, a trait somewhat distinctive to Al Quaeda.

Gina9223
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

*sigh*

Maybe someone should point out to Mr. Powell that there’s a cotton feild in Alabama that needs picking?

Yes, I’m crass, crude and disgusted with it all.

Can someone point out to Mr. Powell and Mr. Obama that it took a President to really start the end of segregation by ending in the armed forces? Before then Jim Crow was KING in the not just the south but in a lot of the US. Maybe not in law, but in custom. For THEM to turn thier heads and say that this is different is pure BS. Its Civil Rights for ALL, not just some.

Quo
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Keeping gays out of the military is a good idea. There may be no conclusive evidence that allowing to serve would cause harm, but who needs it? Since nobody expects men and women to shower together, why should heterosexual men and homosexual men shower together?

Emily K
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

LULZ! here comes Quo the troll to (surprise!) tell us that the anti-gay Status Quo should be upheld – cuz they sez so.

Why should teh homos be kept from the military? Bcuz. Thats why.

Well, when you put it that way…

And to follow, here come the indignant responses attempting to show Quo what makes them a relic of a previous generation’s bigotry rather than the voice of the future. But they’re all pointless. Quo has already “won” the argument in its mind.

Most people think DADT is stupid and a big-ass waste of money. It’s only a matter of time before it’s gone, though it might take a bit of time. And we should keep pushing til it’s gone. If the Holy Land’s army can let teh dirty homos who *always* get shower-time erections serve, why not us?

OH, and as someone who marched in a drum & bugle corps, I can tell ya that never was I less turned on than when i was in the shower with everyone. I didn’t stare at others and hoped that others didn’t stare at me. The idea was to finish showering as quickly as possible so that we could polish our bugles, load the truck, and maybe (with luck) hit the 7-11 down the road before we had to shove off to the field where the show was being held. Time was never more precious!

Bruno
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

@Quo: The U.S. doesn’t keep gays out of the military unless they’re known to be gay. So the showers aren’t “safe” after all.

Quo
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Emily K,

That doesn’t really answer my argument, does it? If you expect gay men and straight men to shower together, why not have men and women shower together?

If straight guys can put up with being seen naked by gay guys, despite the fact that the latter group might find them sexually attractive, then why shouldn’t women be expected to put up with being seen naked by straight men?

Quo
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Bruno,

Yes, I know that. And I agree actually that don’t ask/don’t tell is a bad policy, but that’s because it’s too tolerant, not because it’s too restrictive.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Quo,
It’s called ‘we get to pick when an issue is relevant and when it isn’t.’

If straight men want to shower with straight women, well, everyone acknowledges this would be a problem b/c it would potentially make women uncomfortable to shower with those they know view them as sexual objects. But if straight men would feel uncomfortable showering with men they know to be gay (and it DOES matter if it is known or ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, when the assumption is that no one is viewing anyone else as a sexual object), well, that’s just too bad, and they should get over it. But none of those people making that argument will suggest that women should just get over their lack of comfort with the idea of showering with strange men.

When it suits gay activists, they will closely equate the situations of women and gays (or black and gays, or any other disadvantaged group and gays); but when the equation doesn’t suit them, they just refuse it, and no reasons are given. And to ask for reasons is to reveal you are an ignorant homophobe. You’ll figure out the game in short order.

Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

The shower thing is a complete red herring. Straight men have been showering with gay men all their lives. I shower with straight men all the time. I will do so again tomorrow, in fact. Do they know it? Hell, I don’t know. But if they’re paying attention they probably do.

This is completely ridiculous. Yes, straight soldiers should man up and get over it. And if there is anything untoward going on, well there’s sexual harassment statutes that come into play. It really is that simple.

cd
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Quo…why not try the opposite, i.e. not care about gays in the military and let them be? If the horrible things that people like you pretend will happen, do happen, then we’ll no doubt change things to suit.

Quo
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Jim,

Your response completely evades my point. If straight men should simply accept that they will be seen naked by gay men, who quite likely are sexually attracted to them, then why shouldn’t women be expected to accept that they will be seen naked by straight men who probably find them sexually attractive? Why deal with these situations differently?

Emily K
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

I think we should use this reason to make a case for never incarcerating gays. Using the prison showers would be traumatic for the other inmates. It’d be better for society if gays were never arrested! t(^^t)

Quo
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Emily K,

That’s a bad argument, and it’s also possibly off-topic, too, so no response.

----
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

All this DADT mess is due to gay men showering with heteros. We should follow Quo’s brilliant idea and also ban gays from all places that have public showers including schools, gyms, fire stations, etc.

Emily K
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Are gays allowed to use the public showers offered to professional athletes? Are there public showers used by Olympians? Maybe those and others need to be segregated so that gays can feel free to descend into their inevitable orgy without making heteros feel icky.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

See what I mean?

Michael
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Seriously?

Richard, Quo, I don’t know if I could possibly articulate how silly this argument sounds.

We’re talking about our military here – the men and women who make huge sacrifices of personal freedom, who survive that physical and psychological nightmare known as boot camp, who after rigorous training fight real battles with real risks.

And you’re actually arguing that we should deny gay servicemen the respect they deserve because it might make other soldiers uncomfortable in the shower.

Amazing.

Me, I give our straight soldiers a little more credit. They’ll pull through just fine.

But if you want to throw a fit about the injustice of barring guys from the women’s shower, go right ahead.

You sound ridiculous.

Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

There is a very huge difference between gays in the shower and women and men showering together. Now me, it wouldn’t bother me to shower with women in the least, but many women would feel very physically/sexually vulnerable being forced to shower with men.

So is that it? Do you think that those big manly soldiers will feel sexually vulnerable because a fairy is sharing a shower with them? Is that what this argument boils down to?

You know, this has to be the most laughable argument I’ve heard. I’m sorry if you feel I’m not taking it seriously. My problem is that I simply cannot figure out how to take it seriously. Now I’m afraid I may burst out laughing when I’m in the gym shower tomorrow. I can picture it now: walking up behind someone like Mr. Wood and yelling “Boo!” and watch as he drops his soap and wonder if he should bend down to pick it up.

So I’ll let you have this one as a “win,” simply because I’m laughing my ass off over it. It’s worth that much right there.

Big badass marines afraid of a queer in the shower…. ……

Quo
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Jim,

Your argument is sexist. It assumes that military women aren’t capable of protecting themselves, and that they would feel not only uncomfortable or embarrassed to be naked around men, but physically threatened (in reality, I imagine that some men would feel frightened of the kind of women who were fit to serve in the military…)

It’s interesting, and very revealing, to see how the supposedly liberal and progressive argument for including gays in the military turns out to depend on sexist assumptions when you look at it closely enough.

In any case, you’re forgetting that the uncomfortableness of men and women showering together works both ways. The large majority of women would not want to shower naked with men, but it’s also probably true that the large majority of men wouldn’t want to shower with women either. That’s not because of fears about physical safety, but about the desire to preserve decency, something that most people would understand and respect.

Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

It’s not sexist at all. Just ask around. I think many women will answer just as I did.

But okay then, if it’s a matter of preserving decency, how does the fact that a gay man in the shower with straight men violate that?

I’m really still trying to take this thing seriously.

Regan DuCasse
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Quo, first of all, you don’t think much of the professionalism of the straight soldiers, let alone the gay ones.
You insult the straight soldiers who are there to do a job, a SERIOUS job and you insult the gay soldiers who ALREADY have rendered your stupid question academic.

And, if straight male soldiers feel this way, then this is great equalizer regarding sensitivity towards female personnel.
They have an opportunity to be in the boots of those they might not understand otherwise.

You’re not using your head Quo, you want others to use their for you.
Your question is answered. In the civilian world, us gym rats shower with someone likely to be gay.
So?

Serious pros, whatever they do, don’t let themselves be so distracted.
And no workplace should indulge such an irrational prejudice.
Our service doesn’t discriminate against say, Muslim soldiers. Even though we’re fighting against Islamic terrorists and there have been deadly attacks on our soldiers from fellow soldiers who were Muslim.

Yet, they aren’t banning Muslims from service.
And the best point of all, coalition forces from Britain, Canada and Spain have openly gay servicemembers mixed in with American personnel.
This question doesn’t require any more study.

It’s a CAN DO…so they need to just get on with it and lift the ban.
You have been answered Quo.
Asking the same question in a different way, doesn’t mean it’s any less answered.
You’re not owed another thing.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

You just said sexual harrassment rules are in effect for men who receive unwanted sexual advances from other men, yet you do not note that the same is true for women. The real point is that it’s NOT simply about the threat of physical advances–it’s the desire NOT to be in the gaze of another as a sexual object when one is unclothed. It doesn’t matter that men are all big and tough and can “man up” in Burroway’s remarkably sexist phrase.

If women have a right not to be subjected to showering with other people who are potentially looking at them as sexual objects and thereby deeply and intimately intruding on them in an unwanted fashion, men have the same right. If the one does not have such a right, neither does the other. All of you have systematically refused to acknowledge that the parallel is precise. The issue obviously isn’t the silliness of dropped soap and bending over.

David C.
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Well, perhaps it just time for people to update their world views. Far too many of us haven’t revisited ours since High School, if that recently.

History is replete with male and female homoeroticism. Since the beginning of recorded history and certainly well before, men and women have eyed members of their own and opposite sex for a variety of reasons, some sexual, many not. The raw fact is that men and women have for millennia been in close proximity to other men and women that may have considered them sexually interesting.

Anyone that is so insecure as to believe that the thoughts of another person are somehow going to make them less human or threaten their self-worth or masculinity or femininity is already way in over their head trying to live in our modern world.

I recommend such individuals seek therapy from an LCSW or psychiatrist because many such people have a lot more issues than with whom they are showering.

Short form of this remark: Grow Up.

Emily K
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

I once asked a straight member of an all-male drum corps if he felt uncomfortable showering with all the gays in that corps (and believe me there were a ton.) He said “no. we don’t need to. we’re all brothers.” Which is how I felt showering with the girls I showered with – that we were sisters.

And as an aside – and this is probably just me – but I’m less likely to look at a girl I have a crush on while she’s naked. Not because I’m worried I’ll be so turned on that I’ll jump her, but because I’m so shy around her that I want her to retain her “dignity” of a sort by having me not see her naked; this is old-fashioned but I’m a pretty reserved person.

Ben in Oakland
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

The debate over don’t-ask-don’t-tell and gay people in the military– otherwise known as oh-god-they’ll-see-me-naked– is a microcosm of the malaise in our political discourse, which malaise promises to undermine both our well-being as a nation and our place in the world. DADT allows gay people to serve, but insists that they lie about it. In other words, it acknowledges that gay people are not only fit to serve, but may do so with honor and distinction– hardly news to most of our allies, who don’t seem to have a problem with it.

As always, there is a subtext. The politics of prejudice is the unacknowledged elephant in the foxhole, not boys showering. Our soldiers pay the price for this basic dishonesty with extended tours of duty in Iraq, because there are not enough soldiers, and poor military intelligence, as many Arabic translators have been dismissed because of DADT. In short: soldiers dead because of bigotry.

While the bigotry amazes me, the belief of so many straight men (and, as always, those-who-wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t) that every gay man is interested in everyone of them is mind-boggling. Brad Pitt– maybe. Jack Black– I don’t think so, though I like him as a person. Can you say projection?

We scorn Muslims for their absolutely antiquated treatment of women that is premised on the fear that every women is so vulnerable to her carnal desires that her body must be completely hidden . We don’t allow the men and women to shower together because of straight men, not because of women. Many straight men are unable and unwilling to grasp this concept because they see all women as objects for sexual gratification.When I visit my husband’s family in Germany, as well as clothing optional places here, men and women shower together with no problem. Is it the women they’re worried about or isn’t it more probable that these men don’t trust themselves to act appropriately? The same mind set is at play when it comes to gays in the military, straight men applying their own sexual habits and thoughts to gay soldiers, because they cannot believe that gay men are any different than they are. We gay people have spent our entire lives demonstrating restraint. We have too if we want some semblance of a normal social life. We’ve learned that it’s possible to find friendships with people who could otherwise serve as sexual partners…and therefore we don’t have to approach each other and all males as nothing more than sexual objects.
That’s why they are so intimidated by the thought of showering with a gay man or sharing the same barracks. They can only visualize what they would do in a similar situation with women. So they see gays in the military as lacking the barriers they’re reliant upon to maintain their fragile notions of propriety and fidelity. Here is the same old subtext: I so disapprove of/am wigged out by/hate/dislike/judge moralistically/etc. homosexuals that I could not possibly give up my prejudice, not in the name of tolerance, not in the name of compassion, not in the name of freedom, not in the name of fact and logic and experience and reason—and certainly, not in the name of UNIT COHESION. 25,000 moral waivers to convicted felons, but upstanding talented patriotic gay people need not apply because it is GOING TO MAKE SOME BIGOTED, INSECURE IMMATURE, FEAR RIDDEN STRAIGHT BOY UPSET????!!!!

This is just another version of Stanley Kurtz’s insane argument that if gay people are allowed to marry, straight people stop having babies, or some such nonsense. The argument shifts subtly and suddenly from gay people getting married to how straight people feel about that.Why should gay people be forced to suffer the inability of these straight men to evolve beyond their noticeably arrested and obviously immature sexual constructs? And here it is, yet one more time:
Straight people behave badly, and gay people are blamed and have to pay the price. Child molestation? Overwhelmingly a practice of men who identify as straight in terms of their interests and experience. Who is society afraid of? Gay men. Projection, projection, projection.

I do not find that prejudice, bias, dislike, fear, hatred, stupidity, intolerance, and ignorance, or the insistence that those are good qualities to have, that somehow, finally, you have it right about which group of people need to be hurt or kept in their place– constitute a good basis for social policy, law-making, military preparedness, or anything else that might benefit our country.

Ben in Oakland
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

BTW, David. That is hwat it all boils down to.

GROW UP!

Richard Wood
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

You obviously haven’t even read Kurtz b/c your ‘summary’ of him is childishly simple-minded.

Ben in Oakland
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

I actually have read Kurtz– quite throughly. My summary is childishly simpled minded because his thesis is simple minded. Oh golly gee. Thre fags are getting married, marriage is now worthless. Let’s not. Oh golly gee. the fags are getting married. Let’s not have children.

Please. It is absurd on the face of it, is absurd when analyzed logically, and most important, it is absurd when analyzed factually. In fact, an analysis of his so-called thesis was done on these very pages, showing his thesis was completely cherry picked, or as we like to call it, fabricated.

It’s one more example of striaght people behaving badly and blaming gay people for it.

Timothy Kincaid
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

This one is so obvious that I’m amused that we’re taking it seriously.

The reason has nothing to do with orientation or “gazing” and everything to do with body parts. Men and women shower separately because they always have. In the US, anyway.

We raise our children not to see the other sex naked from a very young age. They use separate bathrooms in kindergarten, shower separately in camp, have different showers in PE. And eventually end up in the military. Where, because of a lifetime of conditioning, they expect to shower in separate facilities.

Some cultures aren’t as restrictive about seeing the other sex naked. So, for them, showering together isn’t a culture shock.

But there is no “don’t let a gay guy see me” culture. Every red-blooded hetero knows that there are gay guys at his gym. And most just couldn’t care less who sees him in the shower.

And really, if you get all weird about a gay guy showering near you, then wait until he’s done. It’s not like the entire platoon will fit in the shower at the same time anyway. At least if you know who he is, you can make sure that your sensitive and frightened body doesn’t fall under his “gaze”.

Priya Lynn
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

If society accepts as valid that gays shouldn’t be allowed in the military because straights shouldn’t have to shower with them, it logically follows that gays shouldn’t be allowed to use public gyms, swimming pools, bathrooms, business workout facilities etc. because straights shouldn’t have to be seen by them. Clearly that’s not just or workable and for the same reason we don’t ban gays from public facilities we shouldn’t be banning them from the military.

As to the idea that if we allow gays to shower with straight men that we have no reason to allow women to be free from showering with straight men, that does not follow. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that its a bad thing for someone to have to shower with someone who may be sexually attracted to them, it minimizes the occurrences of this to seperate men and women because this means that in the vast majority of cases the people in showers are not attracted to each other whereas if men and women shower together in the vast majority of cases there is a potential attraction. There is no perfect solution so the one that is best is to divide showers and other facilities by gender as we have always done.

If this supposed concern over showering were serious (and its not) the bigots would be proposing seperate shower facilites for men, women, gays, and lesbians. They never propose that because this is raised as an excuse reject gay equality, there is no sincere desire to keep straight men from being eyed by gay men, they want this to be a problem to rationalize their call for inequality.

Priya Lynn
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

I should add that this “gay shower panic” thing has been a red herring from the word “go”. Gays and lesbians have been showering with straights in the military and every where else since showers were invented. Its virtually never been a problem and clearly that isn’t going to change by stopping discrimination against gays in the military.

Emily K
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Honestly I thought it was about body parts too. I might not revel in showering with 20 other people at the same time but at least I can be certain that everybody else has (biologically speaking) roughly the same kind of body as I do. As for separate bathrooms, well I’ve used all different kinds of bathrooms including mens rooms and I’m glad they’re separate because guys and gals just plain have different bathroom habits, that’s all. In general I think either sex feels more comfortable around similar people with similar habits – i.e., peeing standing up out in the open vs. those who are dealing with tampons behind closed doors.

Ben in Oakland
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy– right on as always. But what is important, as always, is the subtext, which is:

Gay men are so oversexed, so promiscuous, so uncontrollable, predatory and deviant, that we will force our unwanted attentions on those poor straight boys, regardless of the consequences.

We are just so other, so different, so unlike normal folks, outside the bounds of normal behaviors and expectations, with no possible connections to the normal world, lacking in all the simple social controls and basic good manners that such normal folks take as, well, normal…. (take a breath!)

and most importantly, so dangerous…

that we MUST be kept out.

Well, actually, we don’t have to be kept out. It’s fine if we’re there. just don’t let the straight boys know, because it scares them. Because we’re not just like them. Unless you’re thinking like Quo– the policy is too tolerant, and you have to keep all gays out, even though that is impossible UNLESS THEY TELL YOU!!!! Which is the whole point of DADT!!! Because there is no test, no smoking limp wrist, to tell you. And in fact, as penile plthymywhatchamacallits show, the more anti-gay you are, the harder it makes your dick.

This kind of silly thinking makes my head hurt.

Those of us in the reality based community have one simple question, the very posing of which demolishes the stupidity of the argument, which several others have already pointed out: viz,

What in hell do those people think we have been doing all of these years, decades, and centuries…

SENDING OURSELVES OUT WITH THE LAUNDRY FOR DRY-CLEANING?

The whole thing is an obfuscation, because the subtext is the only “truth” in the Great Shower Controversy. It is the Great Fear and the Great Hate at the heart of it all. Gay people are already in the military, taking showers with their buddies and buddettes, AND THE KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE THEMSELVES. Not to mention, those of us in the reality-based community also know that straight boys and straight girls check out other people in the showers to compare various endowments. It’s normal and natural. I even check out the women when I go to mixed sex places, and I haven’t got the slightest interest in them. But I’m smart enough not to stare, or make someone uncomfortable. Same as I would do if I were looking at cute human boys. Because I’m a sensitive and caring human being, not some right winger’s worst fears.

So, Quo and Richard. You really need to acknowledge the subtext here, though I’m sure your point of view prevents you from even thinking that one is there. Because this is the only true thing, however unacknowledged, in all that you have said. Especially, Richard, is is not this pick-and-choose thing that you think we do, especially at this site. It is just your prejudice against gay people speaking, not some reality that you could put forth about gay people in defiance to our lies and propagandizing. You’ve already made your decisions about gay people, and they are not relevant to anything like reality. Your fundamental belief, for whatever reason you may have– and I couldn’t begin to guess why– is that GAY-IS-BAD-DANGEROUS-EVIL-SCARY and whatever else you got going. After that point, you are just making it up. It is what the bigots and the haters have done forever, whether the object is black people, Jews, gays, Muslims, women, or anyone else.

Of COURSE you don’t see it as prejudice. It’s just what you think. The problem is that you believe everything you think. And you really shouldn’t. Reality is a great antidote. You can change. Really you can. But you must WANT to change.

Stanley Kurtz is another great example of this kind of mindset. I can’t decide whether he is evil or stupid. PT Barnum must have been thinking of him, or possibly any representative of Exodus, when he said “There’s a sucker born every minute.” No, actually, PT would have said “What a shoddy defense of flim-flam!”

Kurtz’s so called thesis is flim-flam, not science. It’s not statistics. It’s not even sociology. It is a political hit piece, and nothing else. At least two studies that I know have have debunked what he had to say using his own data, just not the doctored variety of it. And of course, I am unaware of any serious research, apart from Paul Cameron and Tony Perkins, that supports this nonsense. And of course, again, those of us in the reality based community, as opposed to Stanley’s fevered version of reality, have a two step question, the posing of which demolishes his argument:

1) Gay people are already living together as if they were legally married, and have been for decades, if not centuries. Why would the legal recognition of this reality suddenly lead to the disintegration of the marriage and the hetero family unit? (Answer: because Stanley already believes that the connection is there, so it was fairly easy to find. You just snip this end of the data off, and then that end, and the middle part supports your belief system. If you squint properly).

2) If this were actually the case, and gay marriage is so detrimental to the health of the hetero family, then WHY ON EARTH HAVE THE GOVERNMENTS OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY LEGALIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE? Of course, only Stanley knows the truth, unless those uber-powerful homos are actually running the political structures of 8 countries in the world. And the press. And the churches. and the voters. And the minds of all decent, fair-minded, caring human beings who can recognize bigotry for what it is.

Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t tell anyone. They’ll get you.

Nonsense. Nonsense. And more nonsense.

Richard W. Fitch
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Since much of this discussion has now turned to “Shower Panic”, I’ll insert a bit of commentary from the latest issue of Men’s Health. Entitled: “Barenaked numbers – we reveal the raw data about nudity”.
Number of guys who say showering in HS gym class made them uncomfortable: 50%.
Number who say they were so freaked out that they refused to hit the showers as a result: 20%.
I don’t claim this to be highly scientific, but I do feel it reflects a trend regarding body image in our culture. Most of the men who are in the armed forces are not far past that HS age (and mentality). It is also worth noting that the same applies to younger men at Y’s and other health facilities. Many leave in their sweaty workout clothes rather than shower in a public place. Does it have to do with “gays ogling” them or is it our culture has become so obsessed with the “perfect body” that we have become ashamed of being “normal/average” instead of elite? If “Shower Panic” is the only or main justification for DADT then our culture is in a very sorry state of affairs.

Richard W. Fitch
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Advocate: July 06, 2009
Veteran Takes the Lead on DADT Bill
By Michelle Garcia
U.S. representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran who earned a Bronze Star, has become the lead sponsor of a bill that would lift the ban on openly gay personnel serving in the military, confirming earlier reports.
Read the rest of the article:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid96041.asp

Burr
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

This whole shower scenario is a load of bullcrap.

Who rapes who more often in the case of a straight and gay pair of men?

Straight guys rape the gay men more often. That’s a fact. We’re more scared in the shower than you, and yet we deal with it.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.