Who Put That Gay Man In The You Tube?

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 constructs? As I think about it, that may be the best argument for electing a woman or a gay president.

Commentary By: Daniel DiRito

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 ‘œdon’™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 ‘œexposure’ 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 ‘œher 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.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Thursday, November 29th, 2007 by Richard Blair |

No Comments

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI