Unfortunately, this is one of the terrible cases of paranoid thinking that, like the Jewish Media Conspiracy, turns out to actually be true. There is literally a web site called "The Barack Obama Watch." Why do us right-wingers often have this tendency to get hysterical, overreact, and attempt to micromanage every aspect of the Obama Administration?
Anyway, the point is that while reading said Watch, I found President Obama's stance on the unnecessarily controversial subject of homosexuality and the issues surrounding its practice rather interesting because they sound like what a Republican like myself would say. Obama is against gay marriage, but not for the reasons you would think! It's actually my reason to be against it and I suspect that Obama stole it from me, as if it were the federal income taxes of which he raped me last quarter.
#1. He is against discrimination based on sexual orientation which of course I agree with except in the instance of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thing. As a military brat I know the reason such a policy exists and it has more to do with relationships in and of themselves and has nothing to do with homosexuality in particular. Why do you think the United States Army does not put female soldiers in armed combat? It's not like people can control who they like, and inevitably comraderie could become romance. Such relationships could endanger the mission because of favoritism and selected protection depending on the relationships between members of a group. Also, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does not mean that homosexuals cannot join the United States Army. The policy is meant to keep everybody's sexual orientation secret. Why would such a thing matter during a battle? It would just complicate things. It's the same thing with other branches of the military. I mean, if all homosexuals were banned from military duty, the country won't have a navy!
#2. He is against "gay marriage" but is in favor of civil unions in which the same benefits given to married couples are given to homosexual unions. Why ask for more? All states should allow such a relationship to be legal recognized as a marriage. Homosexuals are human beings like the rest of us and maybe God made them deviate from what is considered normal for a reason; we must consider this. The problem I have here is with the term "marriage." It's always been defined as a partnership or whatnot between a man and a woman. I'm not saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to have weddings. I'm saying this is really petty because they are trying to change the definition of a word.
Don't get me wrong, pettiness is bipartisan. Remember Bill Clinton and Monica's Gate? Or all those paranoid parents who kept their kids home that one day when President Obama was going to speak at a school out of fear of Obamafication. Fox News went all over those things for like, ever! The Obama speech was more "stay in school" than "vote for the party represented by a jackass (is this a double or triple entendre? Nancy Pelosi in this case I will include, mostly because she's literally the Devil in disguise, Joe Biden I will not because no one knows who he is)." Talk about a moral panic. Women. Ugh...I hope I never get old (I shall use Dick Cheney's method of immortality by the consumption of aborted fetuses unless you can think of a better way). It takes more than a simple speech to Obamify that many kids. Fortunately he has a teleprompter to tell him what to say when to say it (don't be surprised. I just assumed he used a telepromter long before the "secret" came out and some Conservatives made a big deal of it.
Anyway I shall stop pointing out my own party's flaws, partially out of fear of consumption by Dick Cheney and partially because I can't think of anything else wrong with the GOP (except for the No Child Left Behind Psychosis-Induced Act and all these fucking Tea Parties, what a lame name).
Homosexuals should be able to have legal unions between each other but call it something other than marriage. Such a thought pattern is bad for the movement to get equal rights since it displays them as petty (oh wait! so does television!). Call it a Union with a capital U. I mean, it even sounds way cooler as a Union. Marriages don't get the privilege of being capitalized unless they're at the beginning of a sentence. Why is this naming thing such a big issue? It shouldn't. It's so petty! It makes Lilliput's rivalry with their enemies reasonable. If you have read the book and understood Jonathan Swift's use of it as a social commentary on the British Empire at his time, you would get this reference.
Anyway, back to the homos. It is the irrational fear by some Republicans (not me) that there is some kind of conspiracy going on that would open up a can of worms. In reality, this is not going to happen because seriously, this is too petty. Give them rights and call it a Union. It's cooler and if I were to Unite with someone of a similar gender that's what I'd want it to be called.
Also, let's place bets on which branch of the military will assassinate him first. The Army sorta has him by the balls (surprisingly yes, he has balls - he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing whatsoever) somehow, evidenced by the fact that he lied about the military's policy of DADT in his campaign back in '08 out of fear of losing credibility to the Army, came up with the godawful fucking idea to close Guantanamo Bay Prison and send the terrorists to a federal prison in Illinois (seriously what the hell?), to disband NASA, pissing off the Air Force and letting the country's economic rivals colonize Mars first, or the Navy, for continuing the DADT policy.
Don't get me wrong. My command to you: DO NOT ASSASINATE BARACK OBAMA because Joe Biden isn't much better, and Nancy Pelosi regularly visits churches to rob them of their charity money. This clown is the best we can hope for until Sarah Palin gets elected in 2012 (hm...that date sounds familiar).
No comments:
Post a Comment