Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Deviancy Cabal Edition)

Ah, Bryan — losing with grace and Christian charity, not to mention with hopes for a better future … those just aren’t in your repertoire.  Today, of course, we have still more diatribe over the whole passage of DADT Repeal by the Congress, courtesy of the American Family Association (with whom Fischer is associated, and who give him his podium to rant from, but which disavows any connection with what he says):

December 21 is the longest night of the year.

Correct.  The Winter Solstice occurs this year at 11:38pm UTC, on 21 December.  That’s 6:38pm EST, 3:38pm PST.

This year it will also be the date for a three-and-and-a-half hour lunar eclipse, …

Also correct.  It won’t be in the same night period (the eclipse midpoint will be at 3:17am EST, 21 December).

… a calendrical coincidence stargazers haven’t seen since 1554.

According to the US Naval Observatory, the last time the two events crossed was in 1638, not 1554.  But who are we to believe, the government or you, Bryan?

In other words, the day on which President Barack Obama will normalize sexual perversion in America’s military will be the darkest day in 456 years.

Snap!

Except, of course, Obama is expected to sign the DADT repeal on Wednesday.  But obviously he knew the pointed, oracular point you were going to make Bryan!  You have him runnings scared now!

(Dictionary definition of “perversion:”  “sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.” Using the word is not name-calling, it is truth-telling.)

(Dictionary definition of “dolt”: “a dull, stupid person; blockhead. Syn. idiot, fool, clod, nitwit, dummy.” Using the word is not name-calling, it is truth-telling.)

(Interestingly, the origin of the word perversion had to do with “turning aside [literally] from truth, corruption, distortion of religious beliefs” — the association with abnormal/unacceptable sex came from the association with religious dictates on the acceptable ends of sex, i.e., procreation.)

The eight Republican senators who meekly caved to the homosexual agenda …

Ah, yes — so meek, those eight.  Scott Brown (R-MA), Richard Burr (R-NC), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Ensign (R-NV), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Olympia Snow (R-ME), George Voinovich (R-OH) — meek darlings of the liberal set all, and reliable cave-in votes for Teh Gayz.

… by voting to allow open homosexuals to serve in the military do not seem to have the vaguest idea of the havoc they have wreaked on the American military and on American society

Or they simply don’t believe your fearmongering claptrap, Bryan.  One or the other.

And at least two GOPers who voted for this bill – Richard Burr of North Carolina and John Ensign of Nevada – seem positively embarrassed by their vote. Burr offered a lame and self-contradictory justification for his vote, and Ensign just disappeared. They know they did something terribly wrong here, and headed for the tall grass as soon as they could after the vote.

Twenty years from now, they won’t be the ones embarrassed by their votes.

This victory for the deviancy cabal …

Given that I wholeheartedly supported it, I guess that means … I finally am part of a cabal!  Woot! I’m a member of the Deviancy Cabal! Yowzah!  When do I get my membership card?

… is only the first of many LGBT activists will pursue.

Um, it’s hardly the first.  But I agree that said activists will continue to pursue other benefits.

Contessa Brewer of MSNBC has already asked Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire how long it’s going to be before Congress mandates military benefits for the partners of homosexual soldiers, even though the awarding of such benefits is flatly prohibited by federal law.

I suspect that will be a while in coming, given the composition of the next Congress.  But it is an issue that will need to be dealt with, as will, over time, the whole gay marriage / marriage equality / “equal protection under the law” thing from the Constitution.

And transgendered activists are already complaining now that while their homosexual brothers and sisters have been declared the full equivalent of the sexually straight, men trapped in female bodies are still sitting in the back of the bus. They are already insisting that they get to play soldier too. And all this before the president has even signed this bill into law!

Nice, Bryan. Do you really think transgendered folks are looking to “play soldier”? Really? Wouldn’t it be easier for them just doing some casual cosplay on the weekends, rather than go through basic, get posted somewhere that folks want to shoot at them, etc.?

Surrender on this issue will not satisfy homosexual activists. It will only encourage them and empower them.

Agreed.

Not that logic and reason and facts and research and history have anything to do with this misbegotten piece of legislation, but logically, the next two groups of people who should get special preferential treatment in the U.S. military are drug abusers and prostitutes.

This is for one simple reason: there are just three clusters of individuals the FDA will not allow to donate blood under any circumstances: homosexuals, injection drug users, and people who have sex for money.

Why? Because such lifestyles are so disease-riddled and so likely to result in contracting HIV/AIDS that the FDA knows that letting them donate is to play Russian roulette with the nation’s blood supply.

So if homosexuals are now getting preferential treatment in the United States military, despite the clear and present danger their lifestyle represents to their own health and the health of others, there is simply no logical reason to deny that same preferential treatment to drug addicts and prostitutes.

Bryan, let me introduce you to Statistics 101.  There is a difference between “more likely” and “highly likely.” The restriction on gays giving blood (which is of dubious use these days, given the ability to quickly and accurately test and confirm HIV) was based on an increased probability, as an overall population, of gays having AIDS or hepetitiis.

And, of course, the basis for excluding gays from the military had nothing to do with medical conditions.  It had to do with the idea that (as you so like to point out) homosexuality is a “perversion.”  If not, then presumably the other classes that are excluded from giving blood — folks who’ve had a blood transfusion, or who have ever had sex with a prostitute, or who have had a tattoo, or who’ve spent substantial time recently in Europe or the UK — would also be excluded from enlisting.

And, of course, there are significant differences, in terms of discipline and combat readiness, between gays and drug users and prostitutes.

But, of course, you know that, Bryan.

Ninety-one percent of all males who have contracted HIV/AIDS since the epidemic started in 1977 have contracted it either through having sex with other males (60%), intravenous drug use (22%) or both (9%). Hooking is the next most risky practice for getting this lethal virus.

Those statistics are roughly correct.  Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates around 60% of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25% through IV drug use, and 15% through heterosexual sex.

On the other hand (and this is also covered in Statistics 101, Bryan), that a majority (in the US, not worldwide) of HIV infections have come through homosexual contact doesn’t mean a majority of homosexuals have AIDs.  And since, presumably, AIDS testing is part of the screening that potential enlistees go through, I’m not terribly worried.

(We’ll leave aside for the moment, Bryan, whether a society that demeans and marginalizes gay relationships — you know, the kind of society you support — is, itself, at least partly to blame for the higher rate of HIV infections among gays in the US.)

People will naturally recoil at the thought of allowing druggies and hookers to serve openly and wantonly in the U.S. military. But how is that different than allowing active homosexuals to serve? In point of fact, it isn’t.

Well, let’s see, Bryan.

1. Last time I checked, drug use and prostitution were illegal.  Homosexuality is (as much as you may disagree, Bryan) not.
2. Drug use and prostitution are, almost by definition, harmful to discipline and mission within the military.  Homosexuality is, so far as I’ve heard any cogent arguments, not.  We get that you consider it “icky,” but that doesn’t mean that gays can’t (and haven’t) serve effectively and honorably.

Next argument?

Why, only prudish, antediluvian Neanderthal troglodytes …

If the shoe fits …

… would deny them the opportunity to defend their country! How can we possibly justify such egregious discrimination against such harmless souls? It’s time for the United States military to drag itself (pun intended) …

Ha! What a card!

… into the 21st century! Stop the invidious discrimination against druggies and hookers – now! Sign ‘em up! Let’s get ‘em into our showers and our barracks and foxholes! If we let gays in there, we’ve got to let needle-pushers and street walkers in there! It’s only fair! They’ve been denied the opportunity to serve their country for far too long! This terrible injustice must end!

Is that … why … yes, I suppose it must be … an attempt at humor.  Ironical humor.  With a dollop of mockery, a dash of bitterness, and a hearty ladle-full of false analogizing.  Well, I’ll be.

So, Bryan, in summary:

1. You can make a glib association with a proximate natural event (Hey, Bryan — it’s record-breaking rains here in California, it must be the angels crying, right?).
2. Give ’em an inch and they might demand fully equal treatment (the nerve!).
3. You don’t like gays and you don’t like druggies, so you’ll consider them the same. Which is a refreshing change from false equivalences to pedophiles, I must say.

Maybe it’s time to go back to bashing Muslims, Bryan.  You might have more luck there, with a new GOP House Majority coming up.