This is one of those posts where I hate to venture for the mere fact I like to keep this light and airy - and then thought to myself - what is more light and airy than gays in the military?
Many have heard me say that if not for a gay cousin of mine (quite a bit older) taking me and my siblings under his wing, we would not have had such a great childhood - he bought us a Honda 50 to tear it up in a field across the street from our house; he took us to Disneyland, the San Diego Zoo, Sea World, the movies and was a joy to be around.
He was at our house regularly when he was stationed nearby - sharing meals and was like a big old brother. I love him. Back in the day the word "gay" had not been stolen by homosexuals and a rainbow was something only seen after a rain so we referred to him as "different". "Homo" was something only said in jest and never to a person who was "different"!
This whole business of offending gays in the military is, as my dear departed grandmother would call, "A CROCK OF HOOEY!" I agree - gays SHOULD be in the military - gays SHOULD have their own BRANCH of the military - gays SHOULD be sent in first to survey the situation (because who would give more detail to a situation?) - gays SHOULD have more rights in military combat because WHAT group of people have fought more for the rights to just be normal?
I do, however, draw the line at how this morning on Fox News, Adam Smith(D), Washington, describes HOW they are doing in the military - at least until they have their own branch of the military, "...fabulously..."
...oh boo...
Fabulously would be how I would describe how the draperies hang, or how someone like Halle Berry fits a gown, or a feeling after that first kiss...
Talk about Full Monty dialectics!
Is it my imagination or are the progressives trying to sissify our military? No offense to macho gays...
Crossposted here.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
|