“Gay” Soldier was Not Booed for Being a Soldier
Stephen Hill is a self-admitted homosexual. How do we know? When he stood up to ask a question at the Republican debate held in Orlando, Florida, September 22, he opened his remarks with this statement:
In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I’m a gay soldier.
There were no boos from the audience when he made this declaration. Not a single one. The sporadic booing was in reference to the question he asked about a repeal of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” if Rick Santorum becomes president.
One pro-homosexualist wrote that the booing was a “shocking demonstration of disrespect for one of our soldiers, lustily booing him.” To repeat, they weren’t booing because he was a soldier. Several articles remarked that there were some boos but “silence from the rest of the crowd.” This means the “rest of the crowd” did not boo.
Even President Obama got into the act. Speaking at a pro-homosexual fundraiser, the president said:
“We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders – one of whom could end up being the President of the United States – being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don’t believe in that. We don’t believe in them being silent since. You want to be commander-in-chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient.”
Trending: What’s Happened to Ann Coulter?
He didn’t say anything when Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. called Tea Partiers “sons of bitches,” or when his own vice president described them as “terrorists,” or when a member of his own party said that they would love to see black people lynched. There are no liberal votes in these denunciations.
A soldier is not exempt from criticism when he engages in behavior that is immoral because he is a soldier. What if a soldier stood up and said that he was an “adulterer soldier” or a “bigamist soldier” or a “fornicating soldier” or an “alcoholic soldier” or a “pedophile soldier”? Mr. Hill defined himself in sexual terms. He’s a soldier who has sex with other men. I guarantee that if Mr. Hill had said the following, the reaction from the media would have been different:
In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was. I’m a soldier who has sex with other men.
We could take Mr. Hill’s admission and play fill-in-the-blank: “In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was. I’m a soldier who __________________.”
There may be lots of people who engage in all types of rude and crude sexual behavior, but I doubt that they would stand up before a watching world and admit their self-identifying proclivities, many of which they might claim are genetic.
I suspect that there are millions of soldiers who have lied about what they do or who they think they are. Do we have to know these things? Do laws have to be passed to codify what a person chooses to do sexually and then force compliance on the 98 percent of the culture?
Herman Cain has said that he should have stepped in and denounced the booing. Santorum said the same thing. I’m getting tired of Republicans apologizing every time liberals make an issue of a person’s self-professed sexual activity. Why is it that when some person stands up and tells the world what type of sex he or she is involved in that I have to accept it and treat it with respect? A person who defines himself in terms of sexuality is not well adjusted.
Reports are that more Americans are more accepting of “gay rights.” That’s because they never hear anything about what being gay is all about. No one has a problem with two men loving one another. It’s the sex thing that they object to, and this rarely comes up in discussions of “gay rights.”
Some years ago I was teaching a class at a local high school. Discussions of contemporary issues were always on the table in my classes. I tried to integrate what I was teaching with what was going on in the world. Invariably, one day the discussion came around to homosexuality. A number of the students saw nothing wrong with it. Here was my one sentence response: “Please tell me how one man sticking his penis in the rectum of another man is considered normal sexual behavior?” That was the end of the discussion of that topic.