Peter Sprigg, of the Family Research Council:
And I’m talking repeatedly.
Can there be like, a line for this? Because, well, I wouldn’t want to be first in line, I’d want to be like 12th or 14th or something, where you’re going beyond pain.
You know (and let me just say, that while straight I strongly support gay rights), I have never understood the conservative opposition to gays in the military. It seems to me that if you are that opposed to homosexuals, you would WANT some of the strongest proponents of that lifestyle to take on some of the most dangerous jobs possible, after all, a gay man (or woman) that dies in Iraq or Afghanistan is one that can’t lobby or vote for gay rights in the next election.
Also, I am a former marine. I arrived at Parris Island on Thanksgiving of ’89 and graduated on Valentine’s day of ’90. At one point mid-late January, while we were under a lot of stress, one of my few friends in the training platoon propositioned me. As I said before, I’m straight, so you can imagine this made me pretty uncomfortable. In fact I blew up on him, I don’t recall exactly what I said, but at 18 years old and unnerved and generally stressed out… it probably wasn’t the nicest thing ever. But it was mostly about not being interested (after my first ‘no’ he tried to talk me into it).
Thing is, two or so days later, we were totally fine with each other, and remained friends through the rest of basic training, and for the following month at SOI (school of infantry, where at the time all Marines went for a month after basic training and before heading out to their MOS school).
In summary, discrimination in the military is still discrimination. We need the best and most talented people willing to serve our country to do so. It seems both silly and short sighted to exclude them because they prefer to play with their gender’s parts instead of the other’s.
Kicked in the balls, repeatedly, with steel toed boots…and then, have his balls massaged to relieve his pain. Except make sure that his ball-masseuse is an openly gay man (hey, maybe John Baird could volunteer?) And then, for one minute, criminalize gay conduct and arrest Mr. Sprigg for his ball massage. Then repeal the law, but keep Sprigg in jail, where he’d be raped for at least a little while.
Yes, I’m an evil man.
Don’t question the military when it wants to go to war. Only when it wants to send openly gay soldiers to war. Got it.
It is true that allowing Gay people to serve would result in more Gay people getting killed in battle, but you’re missing the real reason these fanatics are so afraid of allowing Gay soldiers. It’s because they sincerely believe that wars are always won by whichever side God favours. Even when obvious bad guys win it’s because God was using them to punish the good guys for some failing (God will punish the bad guys later).
This mindset has been very powerfull in Congress and the Pentagon in recent decades. Puritanism runs rampant throughout military regulations.
I remember how shocked I was some years back, when during some scandal I can’t clearly recall, I learned that officers could be discharged for having an extramarital affair (I’m not sure if that rule applies to enlisted men or not; they said it was from the Officer’s Code Of Conduct). And then I heard that they banned soldiers from hiring prostitutes even in places where it’s completely legal. (That one goes against thousands of years of military tradition.)
I just wish more of these conservative types would follow one of the conservative founding fathers, Barry Goldwater– ‘You don’t have to be straight, you just have to shoot straight.’
That is one unhealthy fixation for being thought of as a sex object by other dudes that this Sprigg has.
Apropos to nothing, but am I the only one who thinks that Sprigg seems to fit the stereotypical mannerisms of gay men than the openly gay Mr. Sarvis? I know that the idea that those who are most outspoken against gays are the deepest in the closet is a cliche, but sometimes it’s true.
Also, Sprigg has such a piggy looking nose, it makes me suspect someone got a head start on the nut kicking and aimed too high.
I was actually being standard ‘tolerant liberal reaches out to his opponents’ until he started talking about the uniform military code and Lawrence v. Texas.
THEN I put on my steel-toed boots.
Don’t kick him in the balls; that will teach him nothing but the meaning of pain. In the long run, this is worthless, since he will heal.
Instead, punch him in the throat in an attempt to take away his physical ability to spread such loathsome bile. THIS will be much more effective, as it will both stop him from talking AND send the message that nobody wants to hear him spout his bullshit.
I agree with Sage. Throat punching seems more effective; not to mention you’ll get a satisfying gurgle of pain.
The name is a giveaway. Any group called the “Family Research Council” has no interest in family or in research.
The guy’s a Slinky: not good for much, but it would be fun to push him down a flight of stairs.
I always figured the best way to get conservatives agree to let gays in the military was to read them the list of countries that don’t allow it.
Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Egypt, and Russia. You know, ?bad guy countries”. Their fear of being associated with them will have DADT repealed before you can say “Fabulous!”
I think the real questions is if the guy feel the ball-kicking through the two wetsuits.
I can’t claim to have studied this matter in any great depth, but it does seem to me that the majority of opponents to gays serving in the military are chickenhawks with overly romantic (pun intended) views on the nature of military life.
As for the military not being a place for social justice experimentation … sorry, Mr. Sprigg. That’s already happened and will continue to happen, and at some level perhaps it’s the ideal place for it to happen.
It’s interesting that this FRC guy doesn’t have an issue with the treatment of women as sexual objects in the military since the idea clearly bothers him so much.
Yes, they shower and bunk separately but the “forced intimacy” of that situation certainly creates plenty of tension that the soliders manage to handle.
Or perhaps he is simply afraid of men being viewed the way they normally view women.
While listening to a story on NPR yesterday about DADT, I found I couldn’t stop myself from repeatedly shouting “BIGOT!” at my radio while they were talking to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA).
BLOCK: But Congressman Hunter, wouldnt you agree that there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now, they just are not open about their orientation. So the problems that you raise presumably would be problems already. They are in the barracks already. They are in the showers already.
Rep. HUNTER: No, but they arent open about it, like you just said. Its like if you want to work for NPR, you dont go to work and on the first day say, hey, I want everybody to know that Im gay. You probably dont care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done. I think the military is the same way. Thats why dont ask, dont tell works.
Didn’t this asshole just contradict his position? If nobody cares what your orientation is, so long as you can do your job well, why is that a reason to keep discriminatory practices in place?
Oh, how I would love to see Rep. Hunter, and this Sprigg guy, and all their ilk served a nice, big roofie-colada with a side order of sodium pentathol, just to get a peek at what is truly inside, buried beneath all their inhibitions and hate and bullshit moralism.
Why does this fuck think so little of the US military that he believes they can’t handle what the UK, Austria, Israel, Lithuania, South Africa and basically most of the rest of the world does?
For all their bullshit rhetoric, it sure seems like it’s the GOP that hates America (or at least thinks it can’t do shit).
There’s a few reasons for the conservative stance against homosexuals in the military. They think dying for your country is a really great honor that they want to deny them, the same way some people wanted to keep blacks out of the military. Also they seem to think they’re… sluts basically. In their mind homosexuals would proposition everyone and break up the camraderie of the barracks. That they’d try to “recruit” people. And I’ve also heard homosexuals called security risks, which I guess means they think gay people would be quite happy to sleep with the enemy.
And I saw someone up there mention the no prostitutes thing. That’s based on STDs.
“security risk” is a reverse-double-fuck-you to gay service people – basically gay people constitute a “security risk” because you see, if an enemey agent finds out that they’re gay they can blackmail them… with the threat to reveal that they’re gay and thus ruin their career in the military because of policies like DADT.
Gays in the army? Sheesh, I think the Village People proved back in the 70s that the navy was more welcoming.
On the one thing that Sprigg did get right was the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was yes homosexual sex is in fact illegal. However he failed to mention the fact that UCMJ states that any position other than missionary can get you arrested. No I’m not joking, and I know this due to serving in the U.S. Army in the late nineties.
For the record, he’s still a douchebag, and I wear cleats while kicking him. Then I would punch him in the trachea (don’t want to miss his girlish yelps of pain) hard enough so he would never speak again.
And I’ve also heard homosexuals called security risks, which I guess means they think gay people would be quite happy to sleep with the enemy.
I’ve heard that justified with the bullshit notion that “since homosexuals violate one social norm, they are likely to also violate military rules.”
I’m all for giving this guy a good kicking, but shutting him up afterwards? Sorry, but I hold freedom of speech higher than one hate-spewing asshole.
Marionette and other idiots who repeat this line, listen (well, read) closely: FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY GUARANTEES THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS. YOU ARE NOT FREE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR SPEECH BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. You want to say bigoted, hateful, stupid garbage? Fine. You think you can scream “I HAEV FWEEDUM UV SPEACH!!!!1” to avoid the consequences? Sorry, no dice.
Funny how the so-called “freedom advocates” out there don’t even know what they’re advocating.
Punchable face, I’d say. Ellis would agree with me.
Also, point for Matthews doing this interview right. He got the guy to actually admit his view, and just lets us at home make the call as to whether Sprigg’s an ass-hat or not.
It’s unfortunately not mystery why they want to keep gays out of the military and I don’t think it has to do with any inherent fanaticism on their part. The Republicans depend on reactionary stances to get voters to the polls. One of the tricks in their bag is holding up the soldier as the model of a good citizen and promising to maintain the soldier’s integrity. Once you get stuck in a position of admitting that the very group some of your constituents are reacting to can be good citizens, you lose talking points.
Shooter, did you even read what I wrote? I agreed that he deserved a smack for spouting his hate speech. How is that letting him off the consequences of his words?
If you want to go off all ranty you might try it on someone who disagrees with you. Preferably someone bound by the laws you are getting all caps about.
I like an observation Chris Rock made on this issue several years ago: “I say let ’em fight, ’cause I ain’t fightin'”.
Where is Spider Jerusalem with the chiar leg of truth when we need him?
Marionette- you said you didn’t want to shut him up. But if you want to tell someone to shut up and don’t then isn’t that violating your freedom of speech.
Okay, I’ll admit, I’ve never been in any branch of the armed services, but everything I hear leads me to believe that one of the goals of basic training is to instill a measure of self-discipline in the troops. Does this guy not believe in Army discipline? Why doesn’t he support the troops?
There’s plenty in the military who would have the problems the GOP expects from ‘intimacy’ with an openly gay brother soldier. But those are the same bottomfeeders that cause problems in the first place, that the military eventually gets rid of.
I was complimented on my genitalia and BMT-honed physique a week after I went to tech school, with the compliment coming from one of my flightmates. I didn’t burst into flame, I didn’t kill him in a rage and I didn’t run into the bushes (or any other convenient ares) with him for a frenetic bout of dirty homoghey assfucking. If they’re going to repeal it, then it’s fine with me. Besides, the amount of “not really gay, but they’re fucking gay!” people in the military would make that moron’s head spin. The only difference between DADT and no-DADT is the fact that I’d have more people around me doing their jobs on a regular basis, instead of having to wait for FY20** to begin so that we can be assigned more personnel.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
"[O]ne of the funniest bloggers on the planet... I only wish he updated more." -- Popcrunch.com
"By MightyGodKing, we mean sexiest blog in western civilization." -- Jenn
Subscribe in a reader