From the Republican debate last night, when asked why the candidates think that American armed service members are not "professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?"
And the reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military, make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives, and they have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. And to force those people to work in a small, tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual, who goes against what they believe to be their principles -- and it is their principles -- is I think a disservice to them. And I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.
What Hunter doesn't realize is that he might as well have said this:
Liberals, libertarians, moderates, and non-Jew/Christians are not patriots and don't serve in the military. Most of the people in the military are unprofessional, bigoted ignoramuses raised by insular, superstitious families; and these brave young men and women--who can handle guns and tanks and aircraft carriers--can't handle the gays. Having Judeo-Christian values or conservative values means that you can't work with or even be around open homosexuals on principle, and our primitive religion trumps any rational argument. Even having the filthy fags and dykes around is against Judeo-Christian principles and is a disservice to General Jesus. I'll drop Colin Powell's name, but don't reach down to pick it up: a homo might be behind you.
What's the difference, really?
Duncan Hunter also looks like a Vulcan and was out-Tancredoed
ReplyDelete