Something I read this morning has been bugging me so much that I have to post about it.
Anti-gay spokesperson Matt Barber wrote a press release patting the U.S. Supreme Court on the back for its recent decision not to hear a case challenging Don't Ask, Don't Tell - the policy of gays in the military.
Now in this piece, Barber says the following:
I served twelve years in the Army National Guard. During basic training a young man who later turned out to be homosexual was discharged after making unwanted advances toward other soldiers and for inappropriately touching several while they slept in the barracks.
“A lengthy investigation ensued. Troops were pulled away from their regular training to answer questions. It was a tremendous distraction for our entire platoon. This incident most definitely disrupted unit cohesion and harmed troop morale.
I have a serious problem believing Barber's story and here's why:
The one thing I know about Barber is that he never misses a chance to attack the lgbt community on our supposed wrongs and proclivities. His entire career has been built on being a phony martyr of the alleged gay agenda.
But to my knowledge, this is the first time I have ever heard him recount this story. I find it hard to believe that Barber would let such an juicy anti-gay anecdote be unheard until now.
And the ironic thing is that Barber is quoted repeating the alleged incident in a One News Now article which also quotes Elaine Donnelly. Donnelly is the head of a the Center for Military Readiness and has been vocal with attacking the concept of gays in the military.
The question I have is where was Barber and this story last year when Donnelly was figuratively and deservedly butchered in front of a Congressional committee last year for her abysmal testimony against allowing gays in the military.
You will remember that one example she cited about an alleged incident in 1974 concerning a white female who was accosted by a group of lesbians.
Why didn't Barber supply her with his incident, which would have been a more up-to-date story.
Let me first apologize if the concerns I have relayed are inaccurate.
But for now, I think that Barber's story of roaming gay hands in the military is a vague and skillful lie.
4 comments:
It's a load of hooey for exactly the reasons you gave.
On top of that, though, even if the allegation were true it would be entirely irrelevant. An allegation of sexual harassment and/or molestation of other servicemembers was made. The National Guard investigated. The servicemember was, quite rightly, discharged not for being one of The Homosexuals, but for being a sexual abuser.
In other words, the system worked.
I suppose his Barber's next argument is that heterosexual men shouldn't be allowed in the Armed Forces because there are some heterosexual men in the Armed Forces who sexually abuse women. Not because it's wrong to sexually abuse women, but because the investigation takes a long time and makes people sad or something.
This doesn't even stand up to the toddler test. It's just another classic attempt to cast The Homosexuals as sexual abusers and tell the straights that if they let The Homosexuals in, they'll be sexually abused.
And frankly, if Barber wants to prove his allegation, he just needs to supply a name. I'm sure the National Guard keeps records of sexual abusers.
Even if it is true, it is a stretch to imply that groping is typical behavior of all gay people. All it says to me is that this groper was a pig and was out of line. By Matthew's logic, you could argue that straight men should not be allowed in the workplace because they might grope a female coworker.
Barber lie? You have to be kidding. Of course he is lying. Someone needs to go back and review the records during his basic training. How about some of the men that went through basic with him? What do they have to say?
he touched them, inappropriately, while they slept.
which would be different from all those pictures you see of fratboys putting their testicles in the face of a sleeping friend how?
Post a Comment