Who Put That Gay Man In The You Tube? genre: Gaylingual & Hip-Gnosis & Polispeak

In The Tube

I'm sorry but stupid was just brought to a new low. The tubes are abuzz over the fact that CNN allowed a question about "don't ask, don't tell" from a gay man who serves on a committee for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the YouTube format didn't require a disclosure of party affiliation. Granted, the incident makes CNN's vetting process appear rather careless, but are we to believe that the question is invalid because the questioner isn't a card carrying Republican?

If that's the case, then shouldn't Anderson Cooper be disqualified from moderating a GOP debate since he is gay? Maybe we should only allow Republican moderators at Republican debates and Democratic moderators at Democratic debates? I swear, we're becoming more of a banana republic each day. I suspect the debate process for electing an eighth grade class president may have more substance and credibility...and certainly less whining from the inane partisans.

Speaking of substance, I guess I'm wondering why asking the GOP candidates their position on gays in the military is off limits for a former officer simply because he will apparently vote for a Democrat. Think about it...how many gay people do we expect to vote for a party that routinely opposes most, if not all, measures that would afford gays more rights and greater equality?

Further, after hearing the answers to the question...especially Duncan Hunters diatribe on not wanting to upset the predominantly religious conservative members of the military...why on earth would gays vote for the GOP? His answer is wrong on so many levels such that I refuse to waste any more of my time and energy detailing the reasons. Those who understand the reasons get it...and those who don't, aren't unable to; they simply don't want to.

I just love the argument that we can't consider allowing gays to serve openly because we're at war. Using that same logic, gays ought to be exempt from a draft if America ever determines it needs more troops because they can't attract enough volunteers. Sounds good to me...let the straight people protect us all from harm. We gays will plan the ticker tape parade if and when we ever win one of these wars.

Moving on, if the rank and file of the GOP agree with the answers given, why be afraid to have these candidates spell out their positions? Who are they trying to fool anyway? Should we believe that if the Republican candidates can avoid expressing their positions with regards to gays, no one will be the wiser or attempt to discern where they stand? That's the funny thing about bigotry these days...people know when it exists and they get testy when someone forces them to acknowledge or demonstrate it.

Following the debate and the "exposure" of CNN's duplicity, I went and read comments on a number of right leaning blogs. While the bigotry amazes me, the belief on the part of countless straight men that every gay man is interested in ogling them is mind-boggling. We scorn the Saudi's for their absolutely antiquated treatment of women...highlighted by the recent sentencing of a rape victim to 200 lashes and six months in prison...treatment that is premised on the fear that every women is so vulnerable to her carnal desires that her body must be completely hidden from view and she must be forever forbidden from being in the presence of any unrelated male...unless accompanied by "her man".

Now let's break this down...is it the women they're worried about or isn't it more probable that these men don't trust themselves to act appropriately...so clearly they can't leave their women alone with another man? Truth be told, I'm sure they're lack of trustworthiness is justified...but why in the hell should women be punished because these men are pigs? Last time I checked, it takes a boat load of man-sluts to make a whore. The absurdity is overwhelming!

The same mind set is at play when it comes to gays in the military...most of these men commenting on these sites apply their own sexual habits and thoughts to gay soldiers...totally failing to realize that gays have spent their entire lives demonstrating restraint and appreciating each other for more than just getting off. We have too if we want some semblance of a normal social life. We've learned that it's possible to find friendships with people who could otherwise serve as sexual partners...and therefore we don't have to approach each other and all males as nothing more than sexual objects.

Many of these straight men are unable and unwilling to grasp this concept because they see all women as objects for sexual gratification. It's the cattle mentality...as long as they erect (no pun intended) fences to keep themselves from succumbing to their desires, they (the bulls) won't breed every woman (the heifers) they see. That's why they are so intimidated by the thought of showering with a gay man or sharing the same barracks. They can only visualize what they would do in a similar situation with women. So they see gays in the military as lacking the barriers they're reliant upon to maintain their fragile notions of propriety and fidelity.

Forgive me for generalizing, as I realize the following may be an unfair assessment...but why should women and gays be forced to suffer the inability of these straight men to evolve beyond their noticeably arrested and obviously immature sexual constructs? As I think about it, that may be the best argument for electing a woman or a gay president.


1 On November 29, 2007 at 9:18 AM, Ben in oakland wrote —

Wonderful commentary, daniel. As always, bang on. Before, we were unfit to serve and we would adversely affect unit cohesion and morale. It's now that we don't meet their "moral standards."
Some points:
1) The last time Gen. Pace spoke on the subject, he made it quite clear his opposition to gay people in the military stemmed from his upbringing, and that it was not about ability or fitness to serve.
2) Quite apart from the idea that someone who kills other people for a living is eminently qualified to speak on someone else's moral standards, we have...
...3) a brand new rationale that has nothing to do with military service. And...
...4) they have provided, the last I heard, 25000 'moral waivers' for people who could never have gotten in before: people with criminal records and questionable stability.
Which leads me to conclude (not that I hadn't already reached this conclusion) that...

...5) This has never been about gay people's fitness to serve, and more than constitutional amendments are about marriage or sodomy laws are about virtue.

It's about prejudice, same as always.

2 On December 1, 2007 at 6:17 AM, DW wrote —

The retired general is a member of Hillary's GLBT Advisory Committee, it is not a major position. He has said someone asked if they could sign him up (basically use his name) and he said yes. My guess is that the committee has not even met and do nothing. It's not like he has Hillary's ear twenty four seven. I was on one of those when I was a Log Cabin Republican (I am a registered independent now)for a local Congressional race or something. The Republican candidate in that race was more liberal than the Democrat and I signed up because we had both gone to the same college, he was pro-gay and he needed a gay person. Other than attending one fund raiser I did absolutely nothing.

3 On December 1, 2007 at 9:42 AM, Justin Thyme wrote —

The really interesting thing about the general's question was how he stated it. He wanted to know why the candidates don't think the serving soldiers are professional enough to deal with gays around them. It was a brilliant method of posing the question which, unfortunately, was never answered and has now devolved into a manufactured controversy.
Instead of hearing the candidates bash those few military types who can't deal with gays, we get to hear Pat, the bloviator, Buchannan tell us that the general should have sacrificed his career. Sigh. Some things never change.

4 On December 1, 2007 at 2:45 PM, Daniel wrote —

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the comments. One thing is for sure, those opposed to gays will always seek out new rationales to justify denying us our deserved rights.

I only wish they were as creative in governing when they are in power...perhaps we wouldn't be in the messes we find ourselves.


You are so right. Unfortunately the media, including the blogosphere, has made a practice of repackaging issues and spinning them to their liking in order to push particular agendas.

No doubt CNN could have found 100 other people to ask the same question...so what does it really matter who asked it? It remains a valid question regardless.


You make an excellent point...one that was missed by most observers. When the general stated his dissatisfaction with the answers, I suspect he was making this very point.

As to Pat Buchannan, does this man have a bone in his body that isn't chock-full of prejudice and bigotry? BTW, dear Patty received a deferral from military service...he was too busy getting "educated" to serve his country.

Thanks to all for sharing.



5 On December 1, 2007 at 6:36 PM, Lemming Herder wrote —

Anderson Cooper is gay?

Oh, and great post by the way.

One thing I am curious about is that I watched the General do an interview and he denied any involvement with the Hillary campaign other than lending his name in some manner. Do you know if he actually serves on the committee or is it just in name only?


6 On April 6, 2014 at 11:35 AM, bluehost web hosting review cnet wrote —

I relish, cause I found exactly what I used to be having a look for.
You've ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man.

Have a great day. Bye

7 On April 6, 2014 at 11:37 AM, bluehost web hosting review cnet wrote —

I relish, cause I found exactly what I used to be having a look for.
You've ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man.

Have a great day. Bye

Thought Theater at Blogged

Post a comment

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Put That Gay Man In The You Tube?:

» Who Put That Gay Man In The You Tube? from www.buzzflash.net
The buzz about gays in the military created by tonight’s GOP debate raises a good question. Why should women and gays be forced to suffer the inability of many straight men to evolve beyond their noticeably arrested and obviously immature sexual constr... [Read More]

Tracked on November 29, 2007 12:49 AM

© Copyright 2024


Read about the Director and Cast

Send us an email

Select a theme:

Critic's Corner

 Subscribe in a reader



Powered by:
Movable Type 4.2-en

© Copyright 2024

site by Eagle River Partners & Carlson Design