|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Why I'm a gay-hating prick
by Michael Medved
Larry Craig casts new light on the importance of banning open homosexuals from military service.
I doubt you can make that case, you gay-hating piece of crap.
If preventing public sex in airport men’s rooms
is important enough to justify the deployment
of undercover cops, isn’t it similarly significant
to avoid, at all costs, sexual encounters in military latrines?
No, because the military isn't made up of children who need to be shielded from life's quirks.
Imagine the impact on morale and unit cohesion
if two guys from the same barracks engaged
in toe-tapping while occupying adjacent bathroom
stalls in the military facilities?
Imagine an America where the Republican party
wasn't built on hatred of those who are different.
Imagine an America where Republican's didn't
win elections by using fear and division.
Of course, advocates for gays in the military
will insist that any such indulgence would involve a violation
of the rules, with offenders facing stiff, severe
consequences. But the impact of gay GI’s on bathroom
atmospherics doesn’t just stem from the real
chance of actual sex acts in the latrine, it involves whole
sexualization of one of the most frequented and
important conveniences on any base.
I didn't even know what you meant to say there - I assume it's hate-filled horseshit.
If openly gay males do nothing to compromise restroom
integrity and security, why not invite
female soldiers into men’s bathrooms, or open
the door of women’s facilities to males?
This sounds a lot like, "If
two men can be together, why not a man and a dog?"
Is Michael Medved into man-on-dog sex like Rick
Santorum is?
If Larry Craig gets drummed out of the party for
seeking sex,
why do a couple of dig-fuckers like Medved and
Santorum get to stay?
Surely, the same rules that would, theoretically,
prevent gay men from hassling other men in the head would
prevent hetero males from harassing women (or
vice verse). Just as a gay male in the military would receive
punishment for bathroom misbehavior, so to a
straight guy could be busted for making improper overtures
to women in the ladies room – but that wouldn’t
make him any more welcome in a female facility.
Why don 't you write a column about an actual
problem, like military rapes in Iraq?
You won't do that because your hate career is
built on horseshit
and homophobia, not the facts.
The problem isn’t just the chance of molestation,
it’s the radical change of mood and sensibility
if you know you may be checked out as a sex object
at a very private moment (of urination or defecation)
when most normal
people prefer to avoid any and all thoughts of physical intimacy.
A bathroom
becomes a vastly more uncomfortable and even
menacing place if it’s used for sexual encounters,
whether those connections involve gay or straight
sexuality.
Medved, as always, avoids the obvious because
he's a whore who can't deal with the truth.
If gays didn't have to hide, they wouldn't have
to "go stealth" to look for a friend.
If an army base had a club for non-traditionals,
who would go tap-tapping in the bathroom?
Nobody, because there'd be no reason to hide
who you are.
In a column in Sunday’s New York Times, Laura
MacDonald insists that toilet sex never involves one-sided,
unwanted attentions. According to the research
she cites (based on “a groundbreaking dissertation” of a
doctoral candidate at Washington University nearly
30 years ago) “a straight man would be left alone after
that first tap or cough or look went unanswered.
The initiator does not want to be beaten up or arrested or
chased by teenagers, so he engages in safeguards
to ensure that any physical advance will be reciprocated.”
Notice the first time Medved says something that
might actually be true, he's quoting someone else.
That's because Medved is a lying son-of-a-bitch
who appeals to everyone's worst fears and prejudices.
Certainly in the case of Larry Craig, the arresting
officer did nothing to discourage the Senator’s
attentions until the very moment of the arrest
and almost certainly invited his advances.
What does that mean? The cop wanted Craig to hit on him?
The near unanimous revulsion regarding the incident
therefore has nothing to do with sexual assault
or attempted rape, or any notion of Craig somehow
forcing himself on the cop.
What does that mean?
Is Medved typing this with one hand?
The Craig disgust arises from the association of of toilet stalls and sex acts.
But Asshole, these people are "in the closet."
They can't be honest about who they are because of
religiously-insane, built-on-fear, caveman-throwbacks
like you. Admit it - Craig's being thrown out of
the senate on a misdemeanor because he's gay
and the GOP hates gays so the bastard has got to go.
If your party could learn to love God's children
they wouldn't have to "go underground" to be who they are.
We have a common and compelling interest in keeping
such places free of erotic tension
and that’s why we dispatch police officers to
patrol public rest stations.
We also have a common interest in not forcing
10% of America into fear cages.
What if we treated them like human beings - would that be so hard to
do?
And if regular users of airport or public park
facilities have a right to escape suggestive glances or inviting gestures
that
can poison an already fetid atmosphere, how much
more so do young recruits the same right to avoid similar attentions
(or even suspicions) from their fellow soldiers
in the intimate quarters necessitated by military service? It’s no wonder
that despite some fifteen years of relentless
propaganda, most high ranking members of the armed services remain
unconvinced that we should alter regulations
to allow participation of open homosexuals.
Even tho every military ally we have allows openly
gay soliders to serve, America resists because we're still hung up
on Victorian-era taboos that the rest of the
world (save Iran, Saudi Arabia etc) got over decades ago.
The national shudder of discomfort and queasiness
associated with any introduction of homosexual eroticism into
public men’s rooms should make us more determined
than ever to resist the injection of those lurid attitudes into
the even more explosive situation of the U.S.
military.
But when it comes to teenage sex, you say, "Abstinence
solves everything."
Why can't our soldiers "Just say no"
like you tell the high school kids to do?
Michael Medved, nationally known whore and hate-talk radio host, is author of 10 horseshit books.
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog