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."
Showing posts with label General Mullen OKs gays. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Mullen OKs gays. Show all posts
Monday, July 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
RICHARD "DICK" CHENEY - MACHO MAN?
Although Mr. Richard Cheney, former Vice President of the United States of America in the time of "W." was characterized as a "hard-liner" on Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan and Iran), should he be considered a tough "man's man?" Does tough-talking backed by the muscle and blood of several hundred thousand soldiers constitute the essence of manliness? Could there be any possibility that a snarling, fang-baring dog wasn't actually up to a flesh-and-blood fight?
Mr. Cheney was known to hunt with other macho men, such as Justice Scalia and various "good old boys." The fact that he shot one of the latter "accidentally" was seen as further evidence of manliness. You got the feeling that he would have been a good soldier in places like 'Nam.
Some have wondered, however, if Richard Cheney might be psycotic. In wartime such a personality could be overlooked.
These thoughts welled up in my mind as I listened to one of the commentators on my traffic radio station of choice. The commentator was trying to make a favorable statement in regard to homosexual openness among applicable military men. As the public had recently been reassured on this issue by General Mullen, who stated that his entire military career had been served amid homosexual soldiers, a little reenforecement might serve to end this discussion once and for all. Presumably, this was the impel for the radio commentator to embark on the subject of "gays" in the military. [Leftist avoid the term "homosexual" as much as possible, since this term was thought to generate "rawer" images of this "different kind of love."]
Was it "tongue-in-cheek" that caused this commentator to use Richard Cheney as the final nail in the coffin of military homophobia? I can't say.
After setting the matter skillfully by stressing signature examples of Mr. Cheney's toughness (typically, something like bomb them, torture them, occupy their country, enslave them, etc.), this commentator then revealed that Richard Cheney had pronounce open gayness in the military compatible with a strong, disciplined group of fighting men (or women). This was an issue that was, in effect, a non-issue to the former vice president.
If this most macho of high executive officials saw no problem with open homosexuality in the military services, so long as it accorded well with military procedure and discipline, why should the lesser breeds of American citizens? This was the "thought for the day" offered by this clever commentator.
What he did not relate to his listeners was that Richard Cheney's wife wrote "potboiler" novels using a pen-name. They have been described as rather torrid descriptions of lesbian romances. Nor did this commentator mention that Mr. Cheney is the father of a lesbian woman, who has taken a woman to bride/groom. This couple have adopted a child - possibly two.
Personally, I believe that this sort of background influenced the former vice president in his pronouncement on gays in the military more than any well-considered argument.
Mr. Cheney was known to hunt with other macho men, such as Justice Scalia and various "good old boys." The fact that he shot one of the latter "accidentally" was seen as further evidence of manliness. You got the feeling that he would have been a good soldier in places like 'Nam.
Some have wondered, however, if Richard Cheney might be psycotic. In wartime such a personality could be overlooked.
These thoughts welled up in my mind as I listened to one of the commentators on my traffic radio station of choice. The commentator was trying to make a favorable statement in regard to homosexual openness among applicable military men. As the public had recently been reassured on this issue by General Mullen, who stated that his entire military career had been served amid homosexual soldiers, a little reenforecement might serve to end this discussion once and for all. Presumably, this was the impel for the radio commentator to embark on the subject of "gays" in the military. [Leftist avoid the term "homosexual" as much as possible, since this term was thought to generate "rawer" images of this "different kind of love."]
Was it "tongue-in-cheek" that caused this commentator to use Richard Cheney as the final nail in the coffin of military homophobia? I can't say.
After setting the matter skillfully by stressing signature examples of Mr. Cheney's toughness (typically, something like bomb them, torture them, occupy their country, enslave them, etc.), this commentator then revealed that Richard Cheney had pronounce open gayness in the military compatible with a strong, disciplined group of fighting men (or women). This was an issue that was, in effect, a non-issue to the former vice president.
If this most macho of high executive officials saw no problem with open homosexuality in the military services, so long as it accorded well with military procedure and discipline, why should the lesser breeds of American citizens? This was the "thought for the day" offered by this clever commentator.
What he did not relate to his listeners was that Richard Cheney's wife wrote "potboiler" novels using a pen-name. They have been described as rather torrid descriptions of lesbian romances. Nor did this commentator mention that Mr. Cheney is the father of a lesbian woman, who has taken a woman to bride/groom. This couple have adopted a child - possibly two.
Personally, I believe that this sort of background influenced the former vice president in his pronouncement on gays in the military more than any well-considered argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)