DADT = Flouncing Admirals?

The Other McCain is one of my favorite blogs - one of a dozen or so I check in on every day. Usually, I find I agree with a lot of what I read there...

Yesterday's post about the repeal of DADT was not only an opinion I disagree with completely, it's an example of where the conservative right loses me (again) on social issues.

Q. How would you feel if you turned on the TV and saw a Navy admiral flouncing down Castro Street in full uniform in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, right next to Dykes On Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

I have to say (respectfully, because I do generally enjoy his work) that this faux-poll question by RSM strikes me as disingenuous at best. Do conservatives sincerely believe if we repeal a wrong-headed policy, this will be the result?

I don't happen to be gay. And I'm hardly a fan of some of the things that happen in your typical San Fran Pride Parade... But I can not understand - or get behind - forcing people to deny a fundamental truth about their personality in order to voluntarily put their lives on the line for their country. It's not as if they aren't gays currently serving honorably in our military. There are, and we all know it. It's just that they can't SAY they're gay.

I've posted before about this issue. I've received emails from the right that made my blood boil at their homophobic rhetoric. I've addressed my feelings about the over-the-top displays at some Pride Parades and other events.

I've even tried to be crystal clear that although I oppose Kevin Jennings' position in the school system (something I keep reading about in connection to DADT - as though the two issues weren't apples and oranges) that my opposition to Jennings has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

But here, again, I find myself feeling alienated by conservatism as it applies to social issues.

I have a sincere question. I don't necessarily expect an answer from any reader (or the man who wants to be my congressman come November - I emailed him the same question), but I'm going to ask:

You're all about smaller government when it comes to taxes, entitlement programs, spending... all important things I agree with you on 100%. Why then, when it comes to what should more properly be church- or family-based moral discussions, do you suddenly have no problem with government involvement? You want the federal government to define the term "marriage", and you want homosexuals kept silent if they choose to serve YOU by enlisting.

I'm struggling to understand this...

FISTGATE - A Clarification of MY Position

I have a post up about the Kevin Jennings "Fistgate" scandal.  I'm 100% behind getting rid of this guy.  Not only should he not be involved in any way with our schools, I think he's borderline to be prosecuted for promoting pedophilia.

That said, I want to clarify my position on this issue.  I've been following this story on several blogs, and keeping an eye on the comments.  I'm troubled by the amount of blatant homophobia (or plain old hatred) I see in connection to this story.  This sentiment is mainly (but not solely) in comments sections.  I'll not name or link them because I don't feel any blog should be held accountable for comments, but I'm troubled all the same.

I posted once about the problems I have with liberals.  Well, this judgemental BS is one of my big problems with conservatives.  (See... I'm an equal opportunity complainer.)  I hate and detest the mindset that someone must pass a religious or other-directed moral test to be a decent person.

I don't care if Kevin Jennings is homosexual.  I don't care that he's a homosexual activist.  My caring about this man and his life begins and ends at his position regarding schools and schoolchildren.

I am not bothered by homosexuality.  I'd be fine with with allowing homosexuals to get married.  First, I think it's a lot more fair than same-sex benefits, since partnership benefits are not extended to heterosexual couples who live together without being married.  Second, I figure if gays can see the 50% divorce rates in heterosexual marriage and still want to marry... well, why can't they have the right to be as miserable as everybody else?  (That's kind of a joke.  Not all married folks are miserable...  but many are.)  Third, I completely reject the notion that allowing gays to marry does harm to my (or anyone's) hetero marriage.

I even support some of Jennings's ideas.  Helping to protect gay kids from bullying and exclusion is a positive thing, in my opinion.  Teaching tolerance (at age appropriate levels) is a good thing.

BUT...   I have a serious problem with the Jennings/GLSEN reading materials and conferences.  Does that make me a hypocrite?  I don't think so.  My problem with it has nothing to do with homosexuality.  I object to the graphic - nay, pornographic - nature of the material involved.  I object to grown adults of any sexual orientation giving instruction on sexual practices to school kids.  I do NOT mean sex ed, I mean detailed instructions on how to perform sex acts.  And I object to any adults supplying anyone with materials that promote or tolerate sex between kids and adults.

As often with conservatism, I find myself agreeing with the goal and yet completely put off by the motivations of some of those whose goal I share.  I want Jennings out of the schools.  Period.  I want him looked at for possible prosecution for promoting victimization of children.  I want GLSEN and all its "teaching aids" far, FAR from my kids and everyone else's...

But I'm disgusted by the attitudes of some who share my position, and I have no desire to be labeled a homophobe or intolerant hater by association.  My suggestion to those who want a solution is to put your personal prejudices away for the moment, stop quoting the Bible in your posts and comments, and focus on the adult/child aspect of this scandal.  I'll not be a party to an anti-gay witch hunt, and I genuinely believe it hurts the prospects for removing this pervert if he becomes a martyr for gay activism because we make the fight about sexual orientation as opposed to victimization of children.   

Fistgate - More There Than You Realize

GatewayPundit has a post up this morning about Fistgate, the Kevin Jennings "Safe Schools" scandal.

Some of the reading material recommended by GLSEN (Jennings group) is under fire for its very questionable content in light of it's target... 7-12th graders.

Jim's highlighting a set of pictures showing the Boy Scouts watching homosexual intercourse. Can it get worse than that?

Yes.

Look closely at the picture. I don't see two scouts watching adult men have sex. I see an ADULT scout leader and a CHILD scout watching:

(UPDATE - I've removed the picture.  You'll have to refer to the copy at Gateway Pundit.  I blog from my living room, and I'm tired of having to scroll as fast as I can to make sure my kids aren't exposed to this filth.  While I support other websites showing it, and I think this is an important issue, when it comes to what's on my monitor my kids come first. -END UPDATE)

Forget firing Jennings. I say we prosecute.

--------------------
Thanks to GatewayPundit for the link. And thank you, Jim Hoft -- for covering this story in the first place. It's disgusting to read and see, but it's more disgusting to think our kids may have been exposed to this without our knowledge if Jennings has his way.


ANOTHER UPDATE:   After following this story (and comments) in various blogs, I've decided to clarify my position on this issue...  If you've read this post, please go on and read this one as well.  Thank you.