I've noticed that since I've moved to New York, I've commented less and less on politics and religion on the ol' blog, more and more on the arts. Shows how mollycoddled I've become. Something had to bring the old curmudgeon out, however, and as is often the case, it's the current parade of anti-gay ignorance.
First, we have General Cole who trumpets his Neanderthal beliefs, only to explain (I avoid the word "apologize" intentionally) that he should have kept his beliefs to himself. He went on to justify his intolerance by comparing homosexuality with adultery. There's so much I could say in response to the meandering, illogical tissue of an excuse for outmoded ideology he presented, but let me make just one point: Mr. Pace, adultery is categorized by dishonesty, deceit, lies, prevarication, etc. Homosexuality is not - except insofar as those actions are demanded of gays by our society and our military.
Imagine my disappointment then, when both of the leading candidates for a Democratic Presidency offered mealy-mouthed responses to the question of whether homosexuality is immoral:
Hillary Clinton: "Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude. I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.”Now, I know already that some have already leapt to their defense, explaining that Obama and Clinton were just being diplomatic, deftly deflecting a question about personal beliefs in order to respond to the larger political issue.
Barack Obama: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow. ...
"I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."
Rubbish. How about some candor? How about some honesty? If someone asked them whether they thought slavery were immoral, I imagine they'd both respond with a resounding "Of course!" Yet, here we are in the 21 century, where a wealth of information and scientific evidence points to being gay as simple biological diversity, and we can't even get a clear and concise "No" out of two over-educated Democrats? For what? Fear of losing votes? How about growing a spine?
Oh, and let's throw this in too: Sarah Aswell, writer for The Advocate, has uncovered the identity of "the duclod man," a middle-aged man who's been terrorizing gay and bi-sexual students for about 15 years. It's a fascinating read. Arguably, he's a product of the culture the above folks are promoting.
Aswell generously omits the duclod man's most personal details, but based on her article, I was able to pinpoint his identity, his address and phone number within a few minutes. I won't post those details here because I don't want to live in a world where disturbed individuals like him fall prey to retaliatory mob justice. Besides, there are far bigger, better known fish doing far more damage. How about using those prized positions of power for good, people? Instead of just using them as stepping stones to more power. I won't hold my breath.