DADT

In keeping with the angry (at times furious) mood I have been in since last Friday/Saturday, I blog yet again.

But first a truly wonderful moment from the newest Garfield book (that’s right, I don’t have money for paper towels at the moment, but I did buy a Garfield book—one will make me smile, one will make me clean, hmmm, hard choice). It’s the very first strip is his 49^th book: Garfield Weighs His Options:

In each scene, you see Garfield at the fridge shoving things in his mouth: Ketchup, mustard, relish, onions. . . then he has a problem. Last scene, he goes up to a wide-eyed Jon and asks, “Got a spare wiener on ya?”

Really, outside of love that will crush you flat, where else are you going to get happiness like that!

On to the anger:

I was listening to my conservation radio again today (I’m waiting for the library to call and say they have the next installment of my vampire romance on CD in for me to pick up), and they were discussing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Of course, their main reason for being against its dismissal is that it would be condoning the homosexual agenda and lifestyle. Which is obviously true. In our meetings, one of our keep points in indoctrinating others into our cult is dying for our country. Well, right behind child molestation, bestiality, and cannibalism, of course. This vein of conversation went on for quite some time. I was able to laugh here and there, roll my eyes at places, and guffaw in sheer astoundation (New word: State of being astounded). However, then a young man serving in the Army or Air Force or some other military branch called in and told a story:

It seems he was on a plane and there was a man (soldier) who came on board who was not on the manifest. When he asked the man why he showed up for duty (they were going into a war zone), the man replied that the pilot was extremely handsome and looked good in his uniform, so he wanted to be near him and see him in action. This made our young solider feel unsafe and that he would be in danger on this mission because not everyone would be truly focused. Everyone on the panel agreed wholeheartedly that open homosexuality would indeed endanger our boys serving their country for the right reasons.

If I had a nickel for every idiotic fag I’ve met I’d be able to afford lots of paper towels. If I had penny for every idiotic breeder I’ve met, I’d never have to worry about being able to purchase Starbucks ever again.

Then, I arrived home, and saw a newscast from MSMBC, where Peter Sprigg was one of the panelists. A few of his points were these: If this ban was lifted, the country would be in danger due to 10% of the military refusing to serve. The moral and the morality of the country/Service would be non-existent. Gays (even those on the down-low) should not be allowed in the military at all. That homosexuality should be illegal not only in the military but also across the nation.

Fact after ‘fact’ was quoted, and on the radio, verse after verse was spewed forth to support their bigotry and hate. In fifty years, our nation will look on these people in the same manner as we see those pastors and advocates who said similar things about African-Americans, Mixed marriage, and countless other stupidities.

I have been thinking this for quite a long time now, but think I am going to actually look it in the face. It is one thing for people who don’t know any homosexuals, who aren’t educated, to hold on to these views. It is quite another for those who know someone—in my case, who know me, can call themselves my family and friends and sill refuse me the right to die for my country, get married, adopt a child, etc, etc, and not even attempt to open their minds or hearts to the man in front of them. That person is neither friend nor family. Obviously.