Two of those evil gays that God warned you about

What happened when a gay couple, minding their own business, living in New York City, suddenly and unexpectedly started getting hundreds of letters addressed to Santa Claus?

Aren't you glad the Christian Right wants to protect children from monsters like this?

British Labour Party gets gay shock.

A recent poll in Great Britain shows a monumental shift politically, if not for the nation as a whole, at least for the Conservative Party. In the poll 1,800 gay men and lesbians were asked whether they would support Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. For the first time the plurality of gay men and lesbians have said they intend to vote for the Conservatives.

The poll showed that 30% were behind the Conservatives while Liberal Democrats and Labour tied at 18%. Those saying they would not vote at all were 17% and 9% said they are unsure. Labour has always considered the gay vote a safe bet. The marks a big shift for gay voters in England. In 2005 they went for Labour with 33% while the Conservatives attracted 21%.

I think there are two reasons for the shift. One is that the Labour governments of Blair and Brown have been openly authoritarian. As bad as the tendency toward a police state has been in the United States it is far worse in the UK. Secondly, the Conservative Party has not been gay adverse, like Republicans in the United States. England does not have a significant number of fundamentalist nutters such as infest the GOP here.

Tory leader David Cameron told gay voters: “I want the Conservative Party to be an open and inclusive Party which speaks for everyone in Britain regardless of their race, background or sexuality…” It is not likely that any major Republican is yet willing to say even that. Tory party chairman, Francis Maude, says that the party regrets their previous positions.
The Conservatives have also said they want more gay candidates to stand for office. Nick Boles, director of the Policy Exchange, and a former Tory Parliamentary candidate said: “There doesn’t need to be much intervention to ensure there is a good selection of openly gay people in winnable seats. I have always been openly gay. I hope to get on the list and to get a seat.”

If you want to see the difference between the British Conservatives and American Republicans below is a video of the Conservative Party Humanist Association being held at the Conservative Party national conference. The speaker, as you will see, is Richard Dawkins.

Right hypes panic for political ends.

The headlines were scary. Supposedly a flesh-eating virus was ravaging the gay community. Right-wing theocrats were in a dither. The crazed "Americans for Truth" group demanded to know why schoolchildren weren’t being taught that being gay was evil -- as if that would make any difference in the number of people who are born gay.

Christian groups called this “another homosexual disease” as if diseases have a sexual orientation. A rather young researcher, Binh Diep, seemed to encourage this hysteria. He warned: “Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable.” Of course the religious Right jumped on that claim. The Conservative Voice crowed: “Those who denigrate the biblical data regarding God’s abhorrence of homosexual activity thereby aid in the furthering of widespread, deadly diseases.”

They claimed that “homosexual men are 13 times more likely to contract the potentially deadly, drug-resistant strain of staph infection, but the fear is that, because the infection is spread via skin-to-sking contact, homosexual men may soon spread it to the general population.”

What’s wrong with these panicky statements? Almost everything. They are just flat out wrong and wrong on several levels. But since the Christian Right hates homosexuals with an irrational intensity the facts don’t matter. They are happy to lie in order to slander the gay community.

The stronger version of the staph infection does exist but it is not exclusive to the gay community by any means. In fact, long before it appeared in the gay community it cropped up in other locations. Newsweek reported: “Once restricted to hospitals, these virulent forms of staph have increasingly afflicted day-care centers, schools, gyms and other public areas in the last decade.” If you read that carefully, something the conservatives aren’t doing, you will see that this infection has been around for a decade and is only now showing up in one section of the gay community, a small number of cases in the Castro area of San Francisco. In other words, this disease was found in the general community long before it was found in the gay community. The gay community isn’t infecting the general population but the general population was the source for the virus that infected a small number in the gay community. The Christian Right typically has everything backwards.

Newsweek notes that this strain of the infection, USA300, “has been around since 2002 and has appeared in at least 38 American states.”

Researchers said gay men were more likely to become infected but that is based on a rather limited study. They said that only one in 588 residents of the Castro have this variant of the infection. I’d like to see the actual numbers of infections because the Castro is not that big an area. I was just there recently at the Castro Theater for a concert. Depending on how widely defined “the Castro” is we are talking a neighborhood of a few thousand to maybe 10,000 people.

Certainly the heart of the Castro is mainly businesses and restaurants. But just outside that central business district it is residential. But these are mostly single homes or Victorians that at most have three apartments. A typical block could have between 12 and 15 buildings. They wouldn’t average more than 2 people per housing unit. Many of these building are single dwellings. If we average two units per building and two people per unit we are talking about between 96 and 120 people per block (counting both sides of the street). Even that may be high. Some of the blocks, such as Collingswood only have residential units on one side of the street with parks and schools taking up the rest.

A quick look at Google maps indicates that the Castro most likely covers about 4o blocks of area being nestled between Diamond Heights and the Mission area. Of course the study may have used different parameters for defining the neighborhood. But if it is 40 blocks then I’d estimate the total population of the area at between 4,000 and 5,000 people. Now if the infection rate is one in 588 that would mean the infection rate is based on less than ten cases of infection. Even if the number of residents were twice what I’m estimating then the number of infections would be less than two dozen. This is hardly a representative sample.

Before version of staph, MRSA, was found in the Castro it was also found in other parts of the country. For instance MRSA was detected in two day care centers according to a study from 1998. In one 3% of the children were infected and in another 24% were. For comparison the infection rate in the Castro was 0.0017%. I don’t remember any fear-mongering being done by the Right about the threat to the wider community posed by children.

In this study it was shown that 7 members of a high school wrestling team were infected. This included “persons whose MRSA-positive infection were identified at a hospital laboratory from January 1, 1993 through February 28, 1994. The “attack rate for the team was 21.9%.” This is well in excess of infection rate in the gay community yet again there were no Right-wing reports about the dangers of wrestling. And note that this infection took place almost 15 years ago. So it is difficult to see how people can claim the “wider community” is threatened by gays who have the infection today considering that the wider community had the infection first.

Six years ago the University of Southern California football team experienced an outbreak of MSRA. All the infected individuals were “healthy college-aged males who were active participants on the football team.” In 2003 “17 football players from a team of 107 (15.8%)” were diagnosed.

In each of these cases, and there are many more, the infection hit a segment of the wider community and did so at rates far exceeding the rate that caused the panic about gay men in the Castro. Compared to similar outbreaks at day care centers or sports teams the infection in the Castro is very low. And these other cases prove that the infection can’t spread from the gay community to the “wider community” because it was in the “wider community” before it was in the gay community.

What we have here is another politically motivated panic. Politics is ripe with such panics. A small bit of information that is factual is exaggerated, intentionally, by an organized political force in order to stampede the public and politicians into supporting measures which the special interest groups wishes imposed.

In this case the fear mongering is targeting the gay community. The goal is to scare the shit out of Christians and Right-wingers in order to keep them dedicated to the antigay jihad. This blog has repeatedly argued that much of modern politics today is fear-based and built around exaggerated, or completely bogus, threats. It is my firm belief that this is true with terrorism, immigration, drugs, global warming and a host of other issues. The perceived threat is vastly more scary than the reality. This appeal to fear is intentional. And it is engaged in by both the Right and the Left. The prophetic H.L. Mencken warned: ““The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Almost a century after H.L. Mencken issued his warning things haven’t changed much.

His chance to put up.

Some of the true believers in Ron Paul have insisted that he supports the right of gay people to serve in the military on the same terms as everyone else. This in spite of him calling the policy that excludes gays "a decent policy". When asked about the policy in one debate he rambled on about group rights which is not the issue here. It is not claiming special rights but equal rights and libertarians are supposed to support that -- well libertarians do. The question is whether Ron Paul does.

In his debate answer he went into a diversion about how anyone who is disruptive should be excluded from the military. Who would disagree but then Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy that excludes gays, is not about disruption at all. A completely non-disruptive gay person can be thrown out of the military if someone discovers he is gay. At the same time a disruptive heterosexual would not be excluded under the policy. It was never about disruption.

In the public debates Paul has not said anything about gays serving on equal terms in the military and when a reporter, at one debate, asked the Republican candidates to raise their hand if any of them would support that right, Ron Paul looked at the floor and held his hands firmly to his side. Of course, off of national television he can sound very different. Politicians are good at that. In some private discussions he has sounded as if he would support allowing gays to serve in the military. To be precise he sounds that way when when someone who supports equality before the law questions him. So does or doesn't he? Is he a libertarian on this issue or conservative?

There is a bill in Congress to repeal Clinton's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, H.R.1246. It grants no special rights. It merely says the military can't chuck someone out over being gay. Of course they can still chuck out anyone who is disruptive in the real sense of the word. This legislation has 136 co-sponsors. But Ron Paul is not one of them.

I won't believe that Mr. Paul is actually taking a libertarian position on equality before the law until he signs on to repeal this anti-libertarian policy. I confess that I would be surprised if he did, and slightly impressed. I don't think he really has it in him. But time will tell. The bill doesn't raise taxes, it's not unconstitutional, it doesn't grant any special rights. So I can't think of any libertarian excuse to not be a co-sponsor. But I won't underestimate the ability of some people to be creative in such matters -- and that is especially true of politicians no matter who they are.

I would like to see some of his genuine libertarian supporters ask him if he will co-sponsor H.R. 1246. A simple yes or no response will do. I suspect he'll give answers about how he has to investigate it, blah, blah, blah. That is merely diversionary and an attempt to avoid the issue. I say that because the bill was introduced last February. There has been plenty of time to research it. And he has been asked about the issue several times, including in debates, so it's not just some issue that no one is interested in. As a presidential candidate he should know about the policy and the act (though his answer in the debate indicated he had no idea what the policy actually said).

The bill is not long and merely says that the government will treat people who are gay, straight or bisexual the same. It grants no privileges or benefits. It doesn't cost taxpayer money and, in fact, will save millions spent to chuck out gay people. It is about as libertarian a bill as you can expect from government. It just says the government should leave people alone in this one area. So will Ron Paul cosponsor the bill? I would say the odds are against it.

Now I know many of the Paulists will complain because I dared have a negative comment about their beloved Saint Paul. Sorry folks but don't complain to me. Just ask your candidate to give a firm answer on whether he will support the repeal of this very unlibertarian policy. He has refused to support it over the last eight months. And based on his refusal, so far, to support the bill, I think it is fair to say that his position on equality of rights before the law for gay people is a negative one. He doesn't support such equality. All those claims to the contrary are just so much hot air as long as Paul is refusing to actually sign on to the bill.

Paul can prove he supports such a equality very easily, with almost no effort at all. And I think it fair to assume that his refusal to do so, so far, indicates his actual position, no matter what he might say when he thinks it will win him a vote. I won't be holding my breath for the press release that he signed on to the bill.

This is what the Religious Right calls a children's book.

When the book Heather Has Two Mommies was released the Religious Right had fits. Rarely have they frothed at the mouth so much as over that book. The book was a children’s story about a girl who was being raised by a same-sex couple. That was considered evil and wicked and sinful.

The Religious Right said that children shouldn’t be told that that same-sex couples exist because they are too young to be exposed to that topic.

At the same time they endorse a farcical group often called “the exgay movement”. Groups like Focus in the Family pour money onto these groups in order to give the impression that religious therapy can turn gay people into straight people. That movement has spawned another movement: the ex-exgay movement”. That is made of up people who were previously “cured” through a dose of prayer but apparently preferred other things when upon their knees.

So far there has been no sign of an ex-ex-exgay movement.

Closely connected to these exgay “ministries” is NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. These are mostly religious therapists who are rather obsessed over the sexual partners of other adults. I always find it a bit bizarre when someone is really, really obsessed the sex lives of others. And one person who was close, both to NARTH and the exgay ministries, was Richard Cohen.

Mr. Cohen has personally produced a children’s book, Alfie's Home, which explains the exgay view of homosexuality in terms that, well, in terms even a child could understand. And it includes illustrations including a young boy lying naked in bed with a full grown adult male. Heather having two mommies was too advanced but apparently showing boys in bed with men is acceptable provided you are pushing an antigay agenda. If you don’t believe follow the rest of this post as we go through what Cohen is saying and show you precisely what he concocted to show children.

And perhaps you will learn precisely how to create a homosexual, according to the exgay movement. You can order it on line if you think this is really just a sick joke.

Step 1. Daddy is distant, Mommy is loving. Poor Alfie says his daddy works a lot and is never home. And when he is home he fights with mommy and yells at Alfie. Alfie want’s daddy to spend time with him. He says that mommy, “holds me” and talks about her problems and “it makes me feel very uncomfortable and strange.”
Step 2: Evil Vampire Homosexual. Now that Alfie feels too comforted by mommy and too distant from daddy along comes his Uncle Pete who just can’t get enough of holding little Alfie which makes him “feel loved.” Of course Uncle Pete then jumps into the sack with little Alfie and “started touching my private parts” and “taught me to touch and play with his”. So little Alfie and Uncle Pete bonk like rabbits “for several months”.Step 3: Alfie is called names at school. He became a teenager and “started feeling different” because he was called “Faggot” and “Queer” and Alfie “didn’t know what they meant.” Apparently Alfie was a very dumb teenager, about the only one who didn’t know what those words meant.
Step 4: Alfie decides he must be gay. But lucky for Alfie a nice exgay kind of therapist is able to set him straight, literally. He says Alfie just wanted love from daddy.
Because the evil gay uncle took advantage of Alfie feeling unloved then Alfie got confused and started dating boys because he was really looking for daddy’s love. The same way men date women simply because they never felt loved by their mothers. (Okay, that last bit isn’t in the book but it would follow, wouldn’t it?)
Step 5: Therapists confronts the family. Our nice multicultural therapist (they made sure he is black) gets hold of the evil Uncle Pete to make him seek help. And mommy and daddy come in to get their lives straightened out as well.
Step 6: Healing! Mommy and daddy are all better and happy because the therapist helped them. Uncle Pete cries and begs for forgiveness and Alfie feels much better because of it.
Step 7: The Final Solution. Alfie suddenly realizes “I’m not gay”. Spending time with daddy and having daddy touch him was all he needed. Now he is really home.
I can’t wait for the sequel. Alfie Knocks Up a Girl!

Surely when the term psychobabble was invented Richard Cohen was in mind. It is hard to believe that sane people think this way. It is even worse to think they want to get small children to believe these things. This seems to be a mixture of the old Freudian hocus-pocus about distant fathers and loving mothers added to the vampire theory of gay recruitment that the fundamentalists just lap up. But I would think that even they would have problems with drawings showing little Alfie and Uncle Pete snuggling in bed.

This stuff is just too weird. And I should note, scary as well. No doubt there is a market for all sorts of such titles. We could put out: Sara Burns a Witch; Mommy! There's an Islamofascist Under My Bed; Homeland Security is Our Friend; Invasion of the Taco Eaters; and Billy Bans a Book. All are sure to be favorites and they would make such lovely Christmas presents. On the other hand is there anymore more likely to cause the kids to appreciate more underware from grandma?

Poland to investigate sex life of Teletubbies

The Holy Inquisition in Poland has begun and the first target they are investigating is the Teletubbies.

Now many people will remember when the insane television evangelist Jerry Falwell had one of his seizures and started attacking the annoying Teletubbies as being gay propaganda. Most the world was laughing at him at the time.

Apparently a few of his fellow Bedlam inmates were listening and have since come to power in Poland. Now the government appointed watchdog for “children’s rights” Ewa Sowinska (my great grandmother was Polish, if I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, Ewa Sowinska in English means “brain of cow excrement”) says she has begun an investigation to find out if the show is a secret gay plot of somekind.

She has asked psychologists to help determine if this is the case. She says she noticed that Tinky Winkin has a purse but “didn’t realize he’s a boy.” I must admit I’ve never known how to tell if a Teletubby is male or female myself. I rarely look at the genitals of stuffed puppets. Apparently Sowinska does examine the privates of television fictional creatures. How else would she know Tinky Winky’s gender -- its not on his (I presume) driver’s license.

Sowinska says she thought that carrying a purse would be a burden for a Teletubby but later “learned that this may a homosexual undertone.” Now, I’m worried. My grandmother had a purse. Could it be? No, but maybe I should start an investigation. In fact she lived in a very Polish part of town, even the shop signs were in Polish, and all the women there carried purses. No wonder Poland is worried. It’s an epidemic but obviously started long before the Teletubbies.

In the show the “purse” is actually referred to as a magic bag. But never mind facts. With a watchdog like this one in Poland for “children’s rights” I suggest people avoid having children until a new government is elected. These people are nuts. Really, folks, I'm not making this up. Anyway I heard Tinky Winky was involved with on the sly with Minnie Mouse, this has Mickey in a rage and he is threatening divorce. But there are rumors about Goofy and Donald Duck which I won't repeat here as I understand they are vacationing in Poland at this time and I don't want them deported.

Photo: The Teletubbies.

Confirming Cameron's deceit

The Eastern Psychological Association has basically confirmed that antigay fundamentalist Paul Cameron lied. They confirm the very things this blog contended had happened.

Dr. Phil Hineline, the president of the EPA, said that Cameron is circulating a manuscript “that purports... to be the account of a presentation at the March 2007 meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association.”

What Cameron gave was not a formal paper but a presentation given in what is called a “poster presentation”. And the EPA says that what Cameron is now distributing “was not present in the title nor was it in the supporting materials that were submitted by the Camerons for a poster presentation at EPA.” They also note that the emphasis Cameron is now giving to the alleged “early deaths” of gays “was not present in the materials submitted to EPA.”

Regardless of that they note: “Whatever its content, even the format of the manuscript to which the EPA identification has been affixed -- a manuscript of more than 7000 words plus three tables and six graphs, would have been completely inappropriate as a poster presentation which was the venue in which Dr. Cameron proposed to participate in the meeting.”

Cameron presented them with his conclusions that the number of gay people in the general population is overstated and nothing else. And that material “was accepted as a poster, not as a paper or address” but there “was nothing in the materials submitted by the author for review by EPA that indicated that the work could, or would, be informative with respect to the longevity of homosexuals.”

And what is a poster presentation. Here is one description: “Well, it’s just what it sounds like: a chance for participants to summarize their research findings on a poster displayed in a hall or conference room. People can enter, walk around, look at all the posters — there were sixty-six of them in this eighty minute session — ask a few questions, and move on to the next poster. That’s it.”

Now you see why a 7,000 word manuscript would not qualify. His poster presentation DID NOT include the material he is disseminating to the public. He gave the EPA information on one topic and then writes a paper allegedly based on that but which includes a vast amount of material not related to what he posted at the EPA meeting. He then uses the EPA to give credibility to the paper allowing gullible and ignorant fundamentalists to believe that the paper he is distributing is an address he gave to this organization.

What he is distributing is a false representation of the poster presentation. Cameron is now lying to the public by claiming to have presented something he did not present. He is attempting to use the EPA to give credibility to his bigoted lies. He is dishonest. It is clear why two professional organizations have thrown him out for falsifying data and unethical behavior.

In my original discussion I said that Cameron was using two groups that were not standardized in any way. He compared married gays in Denmark at the time of their death to the average of death for married heterosexuals. He neglected that the average age of married gays in Denmark was quite low at that time and that marriage for gays had only been legal for 10 years. I asserted that most gays who married would have been young.

So the gay group started out with a very young average age. Some will die in any such group. If their average age is in their 30s when they marry then 10 years later the average age of those who have died should be in their 40s if they died equally. In fact they didn’t die equally. The average age at death was in their 50s implying that it those who were much older who died.

This analysis of Cameron actually looked at the records for Denmark and confirms what I was saying. Fully two-thirds of all married gays in Denmark were under 40 years old because “there was no rush of older gays and lesbians to register their partnerships when the law was first enacted.” As this chart shows the average age of gays in legal partnerships was considerable younger than the average age of married straights.



Paul Cameron is deceitful and dishonest. So why do people believe him? Because they want to believe him. It confirms the bigotry they already possess and gives the veneer of an intellectual foundation to it.

Magic math and murder.

Paul Cameron can be the source of almost endless amusement with his contradictory dishonesty. He writes that gay men are 116 times more likely to be murdered. As you shall see this means that the number of gay men murdered every year exceeds the total number of murders per year. That also would mean that no heterosexuals are murdered in the US. His claims are even more outlandish than that.

TThe average murder rate for males is around 7.6 murders per 100,000 population. Cameron’s rate for gay men would be in the range 879 murders per 100,000 population. That would mean, according to Cameron, that, every twenty years something like one-sixth of all gay men had been murdered.

Take his absurd life span for gay of 51 (his newest estimate). He claims that just under one percent of all gay men are murdered every year (if they are 118 time more likely to be killed this would be the case). So over the life span of 51 years that would come to 44.8% of all gay men are murdered! And no one has noticed. I would think gay men would notice and say something about it!

One day the Religious Right says that gays as victims of violence are overestimated and exaggerated as part of a political strategy for the “gay agenda”. Yet, no one I’ve read has a victim rate anywhere near as high as Cameron. The very idea that almost 1% of gay men are murdered every year is shocking. And it becomes more absurd when you realize that over the lifetime of these men (using Cameron’s own stats) this would mean almost half are murdered.

The total number of murders in the US was 16,900 in 2005. The most reasonable estimate of gay men in the US is 5% of the population. The male population is approximately 150 million in total. so the gay male population would be around 7,500,000. If gay men are 119 times more likely to be killed we have the rate of 879 murders per 100,000 gay men. Over a population of 7,500,000 gay men that is about 65,900 gay men murdered per year! The one big problem with Cameron’s statistic is that it is about 4 times the total number of murders in the United States of all people. This would mean gay men make up 400% of all murder victims every year. And you just can’t go over 100%.

Let us accept for argument’s sake Cameron’s claim that the number of gay men are vastly exaggerated and use that instead. He says the number is closer to 2% of the population. So that means 3 million gay men. And that would mean that about 26,370 are murdered every year. So even with Cameron’s own statistics you end up with the number of gays being murdered exceeding the total number of murders by 10,000.

Of course that is impossible. If 16,900 people in total were murdered in 2005 you can’t have 26,370 gay men murdered as a subset. The subset can’t be larger than the total.

And if you take all the claims that Cameron makes you end up with gays dying at rates that are so astronomical that even his life span estimate is overly optimistic. He says gay men are 24 times more likely to commit suicide. That would mean a suicide rate of 512 per 100,000 gay men per year. He says gay men are 18 times more likely to die in a car accident, that would be 402 per 100,000 gay men. So without thinking about issues like AIDS, cancer, heart disease, etc the death rate among gay men, according to Cameron, for these three causes alone, is around 1,800 per 100,000 or 1.8% per year!

Over a 50 year period, he is claiming that about 92% of all gay men die from homicide, suicide or a car accident. Well, he does say that 9% die of old age. The really amazing thing is that no gay men would be left to die from any other cause. No gay men would die from AIDS, cancer, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, or any other illness you can mention. More amazing is that all the murders, and virtually all victims of suicide or traffic accidents are gay! Heterosexuals are apparently immune from murder, suicide and accidents!

You tell me how Cameron can draw these conclusions honestly!

UPDATE: One of our readers has pointed out some common errors I made which I appreciate. In the process he still shows that Cmaeron is absolutely wrong with his analysis. So I urge everyone to read the comments section for that. I am right about Cameron but my stats are not all correct. So I got the general conclusion correct but got some specifics wrong. Read it.

Don't ask, don't tell, don't think.

It is interesting to watch the mental gymnastics used to justify what amounts to prejudice. It was first claimed that gay soldiers simply couldn’t do the job; that gay people are intrinsically incapable of performing military service. That myth has been blown out of the water by the vast numbers of gay military personnel who have done their jobs and done them well.

The second argument that I have heard used is not that gay service members are incapable of doing the job but that other service members feel uncomfortable working with them. That argument basically would make gays the only members of society who are denied the right to serve in the military based entirely on the prejudices of others.

But that argument is failing as polls show that young people, in particular, have no such negative feelings toward gay men and women. The actual individuals with whom gay service personnel would work are the least prejudicial of the general public. But prejudice increases with age. One suspects it is not the actual combat soldiers who feel uncomfortable as much as it is the older officers who sit in offices running things.

I spoke with a US military officer, a friend of mine, about this matter about a year ago when visiting his military base in Germany. He informed me that the vast majority of soldiers he works with have no problems working with gay men or women. While he is heterosexual he said he was often assumed to be gay and never had problems from anyone because of it -- including while stationed in Iraq. The reality is that it is mostly old farts in the Pentagon and Congress, along with the Bible-beating bigots, who are upset with gay military personnel, not soldiers.

One example of one such old fart is Marine Gen. Peter Pace who doesn’t want to change military policy regarding homosexuals. He argues simply that homosexuality is immoral and therefore immoral soldiers should be dismissed. Does he really want to open that can of worms?

Let us say that homosexuality is immoral. Many people also think that smoking, drinking, dancing, Hollywood movies, masturbation, oral sex, and fatty foods are immoral. Usually the line drawn on such matters is whether or not the actions in question violate the rights of others -- not whether some dinosaur has some old view and can’t accept change. And there is a long, time honored moral tradition (which I don’t subscribe to) which says that being in the military is itself immoral.

Pace is not a logical man by any means. Prejudice is rarely rational. Let us follow as he jumps through some hoops to explain his bigotry. He says: “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

He doesn’t mean immoral in any way. He doesn’t exclude fornicators, drinkers, smokers, atheists, masturbators, gluttons, the envious, and a host of others, consider immoral by many people, from military service. He defines morality in a way that excludes gays and allows most other “immoral” people because they aren’t gay.

And Pace is clear that he means homosexuality mostly: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” Gee, does that mean if they involve three people they are okay?

Now this old man says that he does support the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This reveals the real problem. Under “don’t ask, don’t tell” a soldier is allowed to serve, even if he is gay, put will be thrown out if his homosexuality is discovered. So Pace is saying he doesn’t mind having gay personnel in the military provided he just doesn’t know they are gay.

So if their “immorality” is something he is unaware of then he doesn’t care. Isn’t that condoning it? I mean if you actively overlook it, knowing full well it might be happening, then aren’t you condoning it? So it is not “immorality” that bothers him after all.

It isn’t the immorality of what these people do in the privacy of their bedrooms that bothers Pace. He just doesn’t like being around someone he knows is gay. He’s happy for them to be immoral provided he is unaware of it. This has nothing to do with immorality since he doesn’t want to stop the immorality. It merely has to do with the visceral disgust a bigot feels toward people they don’t like.

That’s why all those other immoral acts are ignored by Pace -- he doesn’t have prejudicial views toward drinkers, masturbators, fornicators or the like. It’s gays he doesn’t like and therefore he wants his prejudices cemented into law.

It’s time the dinosaur retire.

Right wing confab honors gay porn star.

We all know about the CPAC conference, the big conference of Right-wing luminaries that is held every year. It was hear that Screech Coulter went into her tirade about John Edwards being a faggot. It was also here that they honored Corporal Matt Sanchez with the Jeane Kirkpatrict Academic Freedom Award. In fact here is Sanchez with the Screech herself.



But it seems that try as hard they want the Right can’t get away from the gay issue. Apparently the man the conservatives just honored is a gay porn star. Or was a gay porn star. I don’t know if he is gay or not. But he supposedly sold his sexual services to men at one time. (This is supposedly the ad he used to do so.) We do know he had sex with men and that is enough to have him thrown out of the military.

Now I would like to see the Right deal with this. The man is worthy enough for them to give him an award but at the same time he shouldn’t be allowed in the military. We will see what Mr. Sanchez has to say about all this on his blog. We will also see what the military does about this. As far as I know Sanchez is not denying the story but confirming it. I suspect he won't be invited back to the Bill O'Reilly show. If you absolutely must see some evidence of Mr. Sanchez's career go here.