Here's the prize quote, from Fischer's anti-DADT rant-turned-blog-post (via
Homosexual conduct is deviant sexual conduct. Homosexuals are defined by one characteristic and one characteristic only: they want to use the anal cavity for sex. This kind of sexual conduct is aberrant and carries enormous health risks.Attention Bryan Fischer: straight couples do it up the butt, too. This public service announcement brought to you by the reality-based sexual facts community. Where have you been while the media has freakouts about teens who have (straight) anal sex to preserve their technical virginity? And articles show up about whether or not men have come to *expect* anal from women they date? For the love of all the gods, man, go browse a mainstream porn store for ten minutes. I doubt it would even take that long to find "Ass Titans #4"*. Also? Not all male-homosexual couples have anal sex. Some do, some don't. Just like not all hetero couples have vaginal-penetrative sex. And aren't you forgetting something? Or rather, someone? Very many someones? Who are also categorized under the general term "homosexual", but who are not men? Yes, them. Lesbians. Some of whom *also* enjoy anal sex, and some of whom do not.
At any rate, this is a ludicrous level of Othering based on sexuality. Male homosexuality is defined solely by buttsex? As well to say that "heterosexuals are defined by one characteristic and one characteristic only: they want to stick their penises in vaginas/they want to have penises stuck in their vaginas." See how stupidly reductive that is? No one rational would claim that hetero relationships are based solely on wanting to have PIV sex. Heterosexuals are defined by being attracted to and forming loving relationships with members of a different gender from their own. Likewise, homosexuals are defined by being attracted to and forming loving relationships with members of their own gender. And bisexuals are defined by being attracted to and forming loving relationships with members of multiple genders, and asexuals are defined by not being attracted sexually to other people, but forming loving relationships nonetheless. See how that works?
Bonus points to the metric fucknugget for these snippets, too...
We would be left with a military comprised of nothing but sexual deviants and those who celebrate sexual deviancy. That is a guaranteed path to a permanently and irreversibly emasculated militaryand
The impact on readiness, retention, and recruitment would have been utterly catastrophic. Character-driven officers, gone. Character-driven service members, gone. Character-driven chaplains, gone. Character-driven recruits, gone.So, masculinity is what defines our military and protects us (from what? Aside from 9/11, which, terrorism is not the kind of thing you can effectively use a military against, we haven't been attacked by anything or anyone we could reliably need the military to defend against), and if we allow it to be "emasculated" it will become worthless. I'm sure that's news to the many women serving in the military currently. Nice little dose of misogyny and patriarchal framing there. And apparently, LGBs and our allies have no character, and are in fact antithetical to retaining people of character.
Frankly, Fischer, given a choice between an all-rainbow-uniforms military composed entirely of buttsex-having gays and lesbians, and your "$MILITARY_TITLEs of character", I will happily welcome our new buttsexing overlords. Now please, STFU.
*Why yes, I totally did go google "anal porn dvds" in order to give you an authentic anal sex porn DVD title. See how dedicated I am to you? ;-)
