I'M QUEER, I'M CONSERVATIVE...(A lesson in political correctness)

WARNING: This article contains a couple of words (and more than a few ideas) that are bound to offend somebody. Proceed at your own risk.

I’ve been conservative for as long as I can remember. For as long as I can remember I have been gay and queer. And yes I am a fag, not a faggot, but a fag. I'm not sure which part of my essence is more despised in today’s society.

So when a rear admiral (is that a slur or a suggestion?) of the U.S. Navy was shamed into sending the Human Rights Campaign (the nation’s largest homosexual political group) a letter apologizing for an “anti-gay” epithet scrawled on a bomb intended for a target in Afghanistan, I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed for the organization that issued the tyrannical demand and embarrassed by our pussy-whipped military brass for feeling the need to respond.

An Associated Press photo shows the phrase "HIGHJACK THIS FAGS" written on the bomb. Was it directed at me? I don’t think so. Was it directed at the millions of homosexuals around the world? Nope. It was directed at Osama bin Laden and his bugger-band of merry terrorists, but it didn’t sit too well with the folks who get paid to act like they represent the opinions of all homosexuals.

"Your concern about the photograph of an inappropriate comment scrawled on a piece of ordnance aboard the USS Enterprise is both understood and shared by Navy leadership," wrote Rear Admiral S.R. Pietropaoli in a letter to Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign.

Now before I get into the absurdity of a rear admiral (who presumably is a “breeder”) spending any amount of time coddling some director of a political action group while our men and women, some of whom are homosexual, are fighting a war, let us spend some time examining what exactly is a fag. As defined by Webster’s a fag is basically a hard working person at a menial task, or a British cigarette. But as any read-blooded American boy knows, the term fag is more nuanced than that.

Can it be used to refer to a homosexual? Sure. More often than not it is used to refer to someone who, for lack of a better word, is being a jerk, as in, “You stupid fag,” which is often shouted by folks during rush hour traffic. It is also commonly used as a good-natured jab against a friend who is known (at least presumed) to be heterosexual. “Hey fag, pass me a beer,” or after a particularly good move on the basketball court, “YOU FAG!”

In the real world the word hardly has any meaning beyond that. So it made perfect sense when one of our brave servicemen decided to scrawl “Hijack this, fag” on an Afghanistan-bound bomb. It was not an anti-gay slur, for it was not directed at homosexuals, it was an insult to Osama bin Laden, nothing more.

Admiral Pietropaoli continued: “There is no written Defense Department guidance governing spontaneous acts of penmanship by our fighting forces. We do, however, expect oversight and leadership on the scene to ensure such actions are appropriate.” Well that’s just great. As if our troops didn’t have enough on their minds they must now worry whether the messages they write on bombs destined for Afghanistan will violate someone’s sense of political correctness. Could this have ever happened in WWII? If the Human Rights Campaign had been around then would they have objected to a bomb headed for Hitler's bunker with a note that read "Gas this, fag"? Probably.

What concerns me most, however, is the loss of acceptable vulgar putdowns from our public lexicon. If “fag” is no longer an acceptable insult what else is on the endangered list? What is to become of the world when we are no longer free to scream “You Cocksucker” at the guy who cuts us off in traffic? Whether or not this person is technically a cocksucker is irrelevant. The point is they made us mad, and based on the chance that they aren’t technically a cocksucker, what better way to insult them than by calling them one? If they were a cocksucker it would hardly be an insult.

Most words have multiple meanings. The words Greek and French refer both to sexual acts and to nationalities. When I acknowledge being a fag, gay, queer conservative I admit nothing more than being a hardworking, merry, lighthearted, odd person who seeks to preserve established traditions. There was a time when I could describe myself using these words without being labeled a homosexual and I rather resent the fact that these words have been co-opted to such an extent that their intended use is seldom understood by a majority of people. And now the same folks who changed the definitions of words like gay and queer want to stop the rest of us from using other words as well. Well that’s just too damn bad. They do not own the language and just because they claim certain words are anti-gay does not make it so.

I reject the notion that people using these words in the manner that was scribbled on the bomb, or as used in traffic or in a pick-up game of basketball, are inciting hatred or violence against homosexuals. These are not the kind of people who stand outside gay clubs with “God hates fags” signs. When we seek to equate one use of the word “fag” with the other we do a disservice to the diversity of our language.

Some of my homosexual friends – yes I have friends who are homosexual – will argue that so-called anti-gay slurs should no more be tolerated than racial slurs. I understand their desire not to be subjected to insults, but c’mon, is being called a fag really the same as a black person being called a nigger? Hardly.

The point is that unlike racial slurs, slang such as “fag,” “bugger,” and “cocksucker” are in continual use in our society in a most un-discriminatory way, and to try and silence their usage because a few people are offended is in itself offensive. It is offensive to the notion of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom to vent using a colorful or vulgar verbal slam. Of course my homosexual friends have plenty of slang words to use against heterosexuals, but apparently that’s okay. After all, only heterosexuals can hate.

It should come as no surprise to learn that I get a fair amount of hate mail from folks on the political left and right. I have been called a fag more times than I care to recall. As far as I am concerned sticks and stones may break my bones, in which case I want the perpetrator punished to the fullest extent of the law, but words will never hurt me. Never. And if the folks at the Human Rights Campaign really want to reduce homophobia, perhaps they should stop acting like such a bunch of fags.

You mean to tell me the people you know never talk about their wives and husbands?

Normal people talking about their families is not the same as a homosexual declaring his or her sexual perversity. Homosexuality requires indulging in the sin of sodomy while heterosexuality is the biological norm among humans.

Homosexuality is not the moral nor the legal equivalent of the heterosexual norm. And we will not permit that to change.

>You mean to tell me the people you know never talk about their wives and husbands?

Normal people talking about their families is not the same as a homosexual declaring his or her sexual perversity. Homosexuality requires indulging in the sin of sodomy while heterosexuality is the biological norm among humans.

Your definition is inaccurate. Homosexuality requires only sexual attraction exclusively to persons of the same gender. "Sodomy" nor any other action is required.

Homosexuality is not the moral nor the legal equivalent of the heterosexual norm. And we will not permit that to change.

Therein lies the problem. There are those -- some of whom are heterosexual -- who do not believe as you do regarding homosexuality. There are people who believe that sexuality is inherently morally neutral, and thus homosexuality is as morally equal to heterosexuality (inasmuch as they are also both the same shade of blue). As such NotOfTheDevil's answer seems legitimate: people who state their relationship with a person of the same gender are no more "flaunting" and "pushing" their sexuality than a person making a note of their marital status.

This does not necessarily address every aspect of what is viewed as the "gay pride" movement (which is much less of a single organized effort than some conservatives believe), though it could be argued that a heterosexual couple who introduces their children is "announcing" what goes on in their bedroom (not that I am attempting to equate the two).

There are people who believe that sexuality is inherently morally neutral, and thus homosexuality is as morally equal to heterosexuality.

Such people are as morally misguided as the Flat-Earth types are geographically confused.

Gentlemen: the pro-homo cheerleaders are popping up like mushrooms! We need to use the truth to turn them away much as one uses sunlight to combat fungus.

No! Anyone who can read and understand english got that the author is an hetero from the beginning.

who cares whether hes straight or a queer ? ..... not me its a dung beetle aticle

although it wouldnt have made sence this small paragraph explains the whole article short and to the point if fags are offended so be it .........

but thats just my opinion

regards the PUNK

>There are people who believe that sexuality is inherently morally neutral, and thus homosexuality is as morally equal to heterosexuality.

Such people are as morally misguided as the Flat-Earth types are geographically confused.

You did cut off the bit where I added that the morality equality is only applicable inasmuch as they are the same shade of blue. To elaborate further, there are those who do not see sexual orientation as a moral issue and thus assigning moral "value" to homosexuality or heterosexuality is as sensible as trying to determine what colour they are.
Regardless, your statement is simply argument by analogy. You accuse people who have no moral qualms with homosexuality of being as misguided as flat-earthers, yet you offer no reason as to why they should be regarded as misguided. It may be obvious to you, but to someone who does not find homosexuality as morally objectionable it is apparently not obvious to them and merits an explanation. For your comparison to flat-earthers to be valid you need to explain what emperical evidence exists to show your position as the correct (or more logically sound).

Gentlemen: the pro-homo cheerleaders are popping up like mushrooms! We need to use the truth to turn them away much as one uses sunlight to combat fungus.

Do my statements and questions sound like cheerleading? I am not really trying to push any viewpoints; I just attempt to ask questions and possibly point out logical flaws when I spot them. I would be interested in hearing "the truth", though I doubt it will cause me to "turn away".

You accuse people who have no moral qualms with homosexuality of being as misguided as flat-earthers, yet you offer no reason as to why they should be regarded as misguided.

Arguing with those who proclaim the moral neutrality of human sexuality is akin to discussing paint schemes with the color blind.

One merely need to research the effects of homosexuality on the human body. If you are unwilling to do the research yourself (as opposed to just pretending that you are ignorant of it), I will call upon one of my distinguished comrades to enlighten you.

Manny, could you supply this individual with some links about the effects of homosexual acts on the human body? Thanks!

>You accuse people who have no moral qualms with homosexuality of being as misguided as flat-earthers, yet you offer no reason as to why they should be regarded as misguided.

Arguing with those who proclaim the moral neutrality of human sexuality is akin to discussing paint schemes with the color blind.

So you are saying that people who do not apply morality to sexual orientation are physically incapable of doing so?

One merely need to research the effects of homosexuality on the human body. If you are unwilling to do the research yourself (as opposed to just pretending that you are ignorant of it), I will call upon one of my distinguished comrades to enlighten you.

Manny, could you supply this individual with some links about the effects of homosexual acts on the human body? Thanks!

Do you mean the effects of homosexuality or homosexual acts? Homosexuality and homosexual acts are two different things -- and by "homosexual acts" I assume that you are referring to same-sex sexual activity. I would be interested in what these effects are and why such effects never occur with any form of heterosexual coupling.

So you are saying that people who do not apply morality to sexual orientation are physically incapable of doing so?

While it is within the realm of possibility that the suffer from some sort of brain defect that keeps them from acknowledging the reality of sexual morality, I would be more inclined to believe that they are morally afraid to do so (perhaps out of fear of then judging their own actions) or mentally deficient (such as with those who simply cannot learn to do simple math).

But we would be unwise to discount the possibility of a physical defect, nonetheless.

There have been a number of posts concerning the effects of homosexual acts on the human body. Did you know that it is now recommended that they seek out yearly anal pap smears to detect their higher rates of anal cancer? Anyway, Manny maintains an excellent library of such links and he will be able to point you to them for your education.

As to differentiating between someone who merely suffers from Same Sex Attraction Disorder but keeps his or her deviant impulses in check and someone who actually commits deviant sexual acts, it is doubtful that we need to defend our society from the former.

To the author: I don't care if you're queer. I DO care that you're Conservative........and that makes you an ally in The Struggle. God bless, Jesus loves ya, and let's keep sexuality out of it. It's about the Constitution, God-given, inalienable rights, and the protection of our civil liberties as citizens. I say to you: welcome, friend.

Wow...

Your posts are overwhelmingly insightful!

The depth....the wisdom....the salient, sobering syntax.

You are definitely a comer!

Of course....

....that bitterness, that bluster, that inconsolable bruise your soul obviously bares....

...that might slow you down.

:o)

SEE YA!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.