Admittedly, I haven't read a whole lot of Kathleen Parker's columns, but I thought she was your garden variety, educated, reasoned, conservative writer. I like reading editorial columns from all sides, especially when I know there's a chance the writer might say something that will resonate on both sides of the political line. Like George Will. He has his days.
Well, with one sentence, she threw out any chance of that, for me.
Writing about the statute prohibiting homosexuality in the military:
It's not about the rights of gays to serve, but about the rights of non-gays to be protected from forced intimacy with people who may be sexually attracted to them.
Um, no ... that's called "rape" and I believe that the military already has some rules about that.
I enjoy thoughtful discourse, even a good passionate row. But I must admit something ... when I hear an argument in which the debater substitutes a fake bogeyman for a well-reasoned point, my mental response is, inarguably, juvenile. Remember the original Saturday Night Live? Well, here's my mental response:
"JANE, YOU IGNORANT SLUT!"
For what it's worth, I apply it regardless of gender. Hmph.
Certain types of stupidity just make me really, really angry. And that's when the Hulk comes out. Thankfully, not out loud or in person. Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart, I occasionally snark in my heart.
(sigh) Back to working on the "gentle" part of "We are a gentle angry people" ...
And how she is proposing we effectively "weed out" all homosexual/bisexual persons in the military? Don't answer that. I don't want to know. Why are the conservative types like this so focused on the sexual aspect of this topic? It's like they are obsessed with it.
ReplyDeleteBu the way, I am so incredibly proud of myself because I went to the grocery store this week and kept my hands off every man I saw...even the attractive ones. What control!