2012 Election | Don't Ask, Don't Tell | News | Rick Perry

Watch: Rick Perry Blasts Obama For Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal



That's the word Rick Perry used to describe President Obama's support for Don't Ask, Don't Tell's repeal. Obama, he said, is "using the military as a political tool to advance his base's position" during a meeting with veterans at the U.S.S. Yorktown yesterday.

Perry's comments of course come after he attacked gay military men and women to win over social conservatives in Iowa.

So, considering that a majority of Americans supported DADT's repeal, who's really the tool here?

Watch Perry's remarks, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. @Artie In response to your many posts, what you seem to be missing is the understanding that the effeminacy of gay culture is an ARTIFICE and a CONSTRUCT. Do you really think that Ernie came out of the womb destined to refer to other adult males as "Honey" as he did in his last post? Of course, not. It is LEARNED behavior and it is UNNATURAL; he learned it from observing other gay men do the same thing.

    So the question arises: Why do they do it? Well, think carefully about it and the answer will present itself. The answer, quite clearly, is that they have simply internalized the prevailing societal notion that being attracted sexually to someone of the same gender equates to non-masculinity.....and so they play out the part by modeling their behavior on women. The artifice of it all is demonstrated by the fact that they don't even get woman-like behavior right--they act more like caricatures of women rather than actual women, with all kinds of exaggeration that you don't see most women engage in.

    And that is sad, for a lot of reasons. For one thing, it is just asthetically unappealling, as evidenced by the fact that almost all gay men, themselves, find such behavior a sexual turn-off (observe all the references to "straight-acting only" in classifieds on any gay hook-up site).

    Secondly, such behavior is a symbol of oppression.....it represents a caving-in to homophobic society. I am reminded here of William Faulkner's line in one of his novels--"It is not enough for him to be a n!gger......he's got to ADMIT he's a n!gger!" And that is how I feel when I see gay men behaving effeminately.....

    Thirdly, masculine values are essential to the preservation of society so to a certain extent, adherence to them must be enforced. We don't have to live in boxes--and I certainly don't want to, myself--but there is a core masculinity that every man needs to be held accountable for, in the interests of the security of a country.

    When I talk about "eradication", I am talking about a natural process, not shipping all queens off to a concentration camp. As homophobia fades, sex between men will simply become a natural expression of masculinity--which is what it was designed to be--and the very notion that it equates with non-masculinity will obviate the very cultural mindset that caused the effeminacy of gay culture to develop in the first place.

    I hope that helps your understanding a bit....

    Posted by: Rick | Dec 10, 2011 11:40:46 AM

  2. @Artie And let me add that the "stomp your gay boy a$$ into the ground" remark was a little over the top, but it was done for effect, in response to the idiotic posts I originally responded to. My point was that "straight" men outnumber "gay" men by 20-1 and so any change when it comes to gay rights or attitudes towards homosexuality will be their decision....and one which they are not obligated to undertake.

    What the ignoramus railing against "straight, white men" seemed to be implying was that the rest of society was aligned against them and was a counter-force that was challenging their power, which is ridiculous (and that was the reason for the Iran reference, as well).

    Whatever changes there have been in the power structure, in other words, or in how women or minorities are treated, have taken place because "straight" white men acceded to them when they did not have to. And DADT repeal is a perfect example of that.

    Got it now?

    Posted by: Rick | Dec 10, 2011 11:48:01 AM

  3. @ Rick,

    As I said above, "I've been able to understand the logic behind many of your posts before now." Your central insight remains perfectly valid: religious homophobia forced men, both gay and straight, to be dependent on women to their detriment. As Christian tyranny disappears, two things will probably happen. First, straight men will be more comofortable being around male-male relationships. Second, many gay men will no longer feel the need to act out in feminine ways if it was never natural for them in the first place. But notice that I said "many" gay men. For other gay men/boys, albeit a minority, acting out in feminine ways is perfectly natural, and that minority will exist in every generation.

    I don't think that the minority-fem phenomenon is cause for concern, although I apologize for comparing that needless worry to having "a stick up your ass," which was over the top. If you want to make predictions about how many gay men will become more masculine in the absence of homophobia, fine. My only request is that you don't consider non-macho men and boys as the cause of the oppression and, therefore, the enemy. Christian religious fanatics who instill ill will and misguided opportunism in women were the cause of the disaster. Stick to your central insight about men freeing themselves from dependence on women and you'll find broad agreement.

    Posted by: Artie | Dec 10, 2011 12:21:16 PM

  4. ARTIE: Broad agreement? Really? You mean, when we free ourselves from half the population, we will somehow be more evolved and well-adjusted? If I deny the support from life-long friendships I've had with the women in my life, it will make my 25 year relationship with my partner better? You mean, having relationships with both sexes holds me back somehow? Shoot. And all this time, I thought it was a sign of adjustment.

    Posted by: TJ | Dec 10, 2011 12:42:21 PM

  5. @ TJ,

    Honest friendship is completely different from forced dependence and blackmail, which is what Christian homophobia foisted on gay men. During early parts of the twentieth century, gay men were allowed to work only in trades where they interacted with women, such as interior designers or florists. That is oppression. It has nothing in common with mutual friendship, which is not what I was talking about.

    Posted by: Artie | Dec 10, 2011 12:47:01 PM

  6. @ TJ,

    Also, in the spirit of tolerance, I'm asking you to accept the reality that some boys and men, both gay and straight, prefer the company of other boys and men, and that is not a sign of being "maladjusted." Different individuals have different sources of life-long support. Live and let live.

    Posted by: Artie | Dec 10, 2011 12:54:37 PM

  7. « 1 2 3

Post a comment


« «Barney Frank Discusses 'Ridiculous' Trans Activists« «