As is often the case in the Washington, D.C. area, when driving, I find myself listening to my preferred traffic station on the radio. It is a station that tosses in weather reports, sports news, local & world news, interviews and commentaries between traffic updates. The people one encounters on it can be amusing. One such is "Dave," who is a commentator.
He had gone to theatrical lengths to build up the "macho" image of Richard "Dick" Cheney to make the point that if such a "real he-man" saw nothing objectionable about homosexuals openly "being homosexual" in the U.S. Army, how could mere mortals object.
I had offered a modest correction to this sham by noting that Cheney's daughter was a Lesbian presently enjoying connubial bliss with her bride-partner and that Cheney's wife was alleged to be an author of "hot Lesbian pulp novels." She allegedly used a nom de plume. My point was that "Dave's" peon to the manly Cheney might be overstated. Perhaps Mr. Cheney has a Village People's standard of manliness. Give him a rifle for a prop, and he's ready for the stage. Mere mortals might even be more macho than the former Veep.
Comes now again old "Dave" to comment theatrically about the decision of Argentina to make "same-sex" marriages legal and fully equal to those of "opposite-sex" marriages. "Dave" carefully built the image of the fiery Latin lover, who was the incarnation of heterosexual love, for the listener to consider. He mentioned the Tango, while sensuous Latin music played in the background. As an aside, he marvelled at this legal decision being accepted in a Roman Catholic country. Doesn't "Dave" know that priests' lead and the faithful follow?
Generally speaking, "Dave" seemed to be saying that the "Dark Ages" of heterosexual love and marriage were finally evolving into a warm, tolerant "All Love" environment. After all, weren't sodomy and fistf--king just another kind of love? If that's good enough for the U.S. Army, Dick Cheney and Argentina, why would anyone object?
I have pointed out in blogs - not necessarily this one - that, if same-sex marriages were given legal status, such "married" couples would certainly adopt children. Since they do not normally reproduce according to natural procedures, their best course for continuation and even population growth reside in persuasion and abuse of innocent children placed in their care. In the latter case the abuse would begin in the mind of a child through "broadening," through a coercive "understanding" and through "lessons" in tolerance.
Incidentally, political power usually is a function of wealth, military power or effective block-voting. Numbers can mean clout.
As the Masonic culture in America demands that all travel the four roads to harmony - Liberty, Fraternity, Equality and Tolerance, "same-sex" couples, whether married or not, should find the law bulldozing away all opposition. There will certainly not be any from the Masonically infiltrated, "shell-christian" congregations, who despise discrimination as breaking the Law of Equality. Whether Roman Catholic priest or Protestant minister, the sermon is the same: "Get down and get it on!"
Incidentally, Admiral Mullen stated that the entirety of his military service included service with homosexuals. I don't believe that he ever explained exactly how he knew that they were homosexuals. Did they know that he was a heterosexual? Does he know?
I guess that it is inevitable that American soldiers will be bringing home a whole new category of "war brides."
