Rick Perry's new campaign ad unleashes a blast of homophobia

[Straha]

Rick Perry's latest campaign ad:



For those of you who can't watch it he says:

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.
I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.

The first time I saw this I was convinced it was parody. Not sure if being the genuine article makes it funnier or not...

[Count Chocula]

I think the message here is that homosexuals are a minority in any population, including America, yet are protected, yet there are people filing suits to prohibit Christmas mangers or prayers when the majority of Americans are Christian. It appears to me to not be homophobic, but an appeal to affirm the continued practice of religion.

Is his "message" an appeal to emotion? Sure it is; he's a politician after all, but I think you're being a bit alarmist characterising it as homophobia.

[The Romulan Republic]

Accusing Obama of a "war on religion" is absurd, alarmist bull shit regardless.

[Mr Bean]

You might think that's the message Chocula, and some people might see it that way but the take away for everyone else is "Rick Perry hates gay people". Which is surprising as Michelle Bachmann and Santorium have the "we hate gay people vote" locked up. It also implies that a Rick Perry administration would kick gays back out of the military.

It also has the simple problem of not being true, you can pray in schools and you can celebrate Christmas but you can't compel others to do so on school time which I guess equals Christian oppression.

[Coop D'etat]

I think the message here is that homosexuals are a minority in any population, including America, yet are protected, yet there are people filing suits to prohibit Christmas mangers or prayers when the majority of Americans are Christian. It appears to me to not be homophobic, but an appeal to affirm the continued practice of religion.

Is his "message" an appeal to emotion? Sure it is; he's a politician after all, but I think you're being a bit alarmist characterising it as homophobia.

Even if you can claim that this is the surface meaning, which is a torturous one but not completely implausible take on what the message was, the ambiguity makes it fair to say it was intended to at least have a "dog-whistle" meaning that the Obama administration is for gays and against Christians and doesn't share the values of "real Americans."

And that's being generous to Perry.

[Flagg]

I think the message here is that homosexuals are a minority in any population, including America, yet are protected, yet there are people filing suits to prohibit Christmas mangers or prayers when the majority of Americans are Christian. It appears to me to not be homophobic, but an appeal to affirm the continued practice of religion.

Is his "message" an appeal to emotion? Sure it is; he's a politician after all, but I think you're being a bit alarmist characterising it as homophobia.

Seriously? This would be classic dog whistle if it wasn't just incredibly blatant homophobia and outright lying. Keep stretching Cockula and you'll tear something. IN YOUR BRAIN.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think the message here is that homosexuals are a minority in any population, including America, yet are protected, yet there are people filing suits to prohibit Christmas mangers or prayers when the majority of Americans are Christian. It appears to me to not be homophobic, but an appeal to affirm the continued practice of religion.

Is his "message" an appeal to emotion? Sure it is; he's a politician after all, but I think you're being a bit alarmist characterising it as homophobia.

....

How is it 'protection' to allow Americans (poorly treated Americans at that) to fucking serve in the military, pray tell? Nevrmind that he's basically saying 'separation of church and state is bad, we should be forcing people in schools to endure Christian prayer.'

I suppose his argument is 'homosexuality is a religion' now?

[Korto]

You're both right. The surface message is that religion is being discriminated against by not being able to celebrate Christmas openly when gays can be open (not entirely sure of the equivalency, but nevermind), and that's a reasonable complaint.
The "plausably deniable" sub message is, of course, anti-gay. Aarrrrgh! Gays in the military! Save us!

[Connor MacLeod]

I think the most fucked up thing (Aside from the comparison itself) is that he treats serving (and dying) for America as some sort of special privilege being unfairly bestowed to the LGBT community. I mean damn, how DARE they! Next thing you know they'll want to get married or something.

Also, its unthinkable that Christmas should be celebrated independently of religion.

[Count Chocula]

Seriously? This would be classic dog whistle if it wasn't just incredibly blatant homophobia and outright lying. Keep stretching Cockula and you'll tear something. IN YOUR BRAIN.

I'll see YOU in Testing one of these days, Flagg and you'll get your comeuppance then! Yeah.

I concede it's possible Santorum could be blowing a dog whistle, and agree his "Obama's war on religion" schtick is ridiculous. I'm inclined to see this ad more as a poorly articulated appeal to the majority than an attack on homosexuals qua homosexuals. Again, I think Santorum's contrasting preferential treatment of a minority versus a perceived abuse of the majority. I see shallow vote-mongering, but fail to see "incredibly blatant homophobia" in Santorum's spot. What I see is a Godly Man who says he will Restore Godly Principles(TM) to Sodom on the Potomac.

[Connor MacLeod]

Which is precisely the problem. It's pretty fucking stupid that he's trying to pass off serving in war as GROSSLY UNFAIR, rather than something that should logically be available to any citizen (as long as they meet the requirements to do the job). It's not even remotely an accurate comparison on top of being blatantly bigoted.

It's even more hilarious the way he tries to pass this off as an 'us vs them' thing. I mean most Americans are Christians, and if you're Christian you MUST want prayer in school right? He doesn't need to check with people like that. And it can't be just a generic prayer, or maybe just a moment of silence. It has to be CHRISTIAN prayer, because its a CHRISTIAN country. Fuck all those other religions, they don't matter! Hell its even more hilarious when you consider he doesn't even clarify which SORT of Christian prayer it should be - its not like all the denominations think alike.

Frankly when I was still going to church, I was Lutheran and we had some openly gay people in our congregation. Noone shit a break there! We even had *gasp* women ministers, as heretical as that was. I kinda doubt my old congregation would have agreed much with Perry even if we are all 'Christian'.

[Count Chocula]

Connor: I just watched Perry's video twice, and I understand now how you can see that as his disapproval of homosexuals serving in the military. I think, again, he was just using it as an easy contrast, but...I can now also see how that can be interpreted as GAYS IN MILITARY TEOTWAWKI AARRGHHH! I, maybe not obviously, don't agree with the subtext you and others seem to be imputing. Hell, let's form a "Spartan Battalion" and send them to fight the Muslim horde! I kid, I kid.

Actually, not really; ASSUMING equal treatment under UCMJ, why not have gays-only companies or battalions? That way the straight guys can do their guy things, and the non-straight guys can do their guy things, with fewer opportunities for friction or misunderstanding in garrison. I imagine that in combat nobody gives a fuck who you want to fuck, so it wouldn't matter when the goal is to kill the enemy before they can kill you.

I also just noticed that I have repeatedly said "Santorum" when referring to Perry's video. Oops, mea culpa. Neither one are on my candidate short list so I guess I got them mixed.

[Zablorg]

Actually, not really; ASSUMING equal treatment under UCMJ, why not have gays-only companies or battalions? That way the straight guys can do their guy things, and the non-straight guys can do their guy things, with fewer opportunities for friction or misunderstanding in garrison. I imagine that in combat nobody gives a fuck who you want to fuck, so it wouldn't matter when the goal is to kill the enemy before they can kill you.

This is some creepy segregation shit right here.

[Count Chocula]

Why is it creepy? Men and women in the armed forces live in separate barracks.

[Connor MacLeod]

Why is it creepy? Men and women in the armed forces live in separate barracks.

You just got done saying they should be put into separate companies and battalions. Someone in the military might have to correct me but that sounds awfully like you are claiming they should serve in separate military formations, not simply have different accomodations.

Of course, giving men and women separate accomodations could be seen as silly puritanism OMG MEN MIGHT SEE BOOBIES AND GET LUSTFUL THOUGHTS.

[Straha]

You're fucking shitting us, right? Like honest to god "no trolling"? I ask because I don't want to waste even five minutes responding to this only to find out that you were "only joking".

[Count Chocula]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough; I meant separate companies or battalions in garrison. Straight guys like straight girls, and vice versa. That inevitably leads to lapses of military discipline and order. Gay guys like gay guys, but when they're in barracks with straight guys, well, that leads to lapses of military discipline and order. When gay guys mix with testosterone-laden young straight guys, misunderstandings will happen. Those misunderstandings can also lead to lapses of military discipline and order, and affect unit cohesion.

I respect people willing to put their asses on the line for us, regardless of their sexual orientation; the military, however, is more concerned with ensuring their human weapons will go where aimed and perform as planned. A weapon that is distracted by thoughts of making the beast with two backs with its squaddie is a less effective weapon. Since soldiers spend more time in garrison and training than actual combat, it makes sense to segregate them so that they are cohesive weapons when they are needed.

[Connor MacLeod]

....
...

So your argument is actually "Its okay to treat the gays differnetly because I'm affraid they'lll attack me in a frenzy of sexual lust?" Or something equally silly? Because I guess Gays have no standards or ethics or self control or something.

Edit: Or maybe you're saying that the straight guys are going to be insecure at having gays in the same barracks with them and will be driven to attack them out of sheer homophobia? That's the only thing I can think of 'misunderstandings' meaning.

Also to get back to an earlier comment... INTERPRETING? Are you seriously telling me he's not literally saying "its unfair that gays be allowed to die for our freedom, so our religion should be enforced upon other people because this is a christian nation." I'm pretty sure he wouldn't let Muslims have their prayers in a public school (THEY MIGHT BE TERRORISTS!) Seriously, he's basically saying its unfair for gays to inflict themselves on Christians, so Christians should be allowed to inflict themselves on other people. Its ONLY FAIR.

[Zablorg]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough; I meant separate companies or battalions in garrison. Straight guys like straight girls, and vice versa. That inevitably leads to lapses of military discipline and order. Gay guys like gay guys, but when they're in barracks with straight guys, well, that leads to lapses of military discipline and order. When gay guys mix with testosterone-laden young straight guys, misunderstandings will happen. Those misunderstandings can also lead to lapses of military discipline and order, and affect unit cohesion.

I respect people willing to put their asses on the line for us, regardless of their sexual orientation; the military, however, is more concerned with ensuring their human weapons will go where aimed and perform as planned. A weapon that is distracted by thoughts of making the beast with two backs with its squaddie is a less effective weapon. Since soldiers spend more time in garrison and training than actual combat, it makes sense to segregate them so that they are cohesive weapons when they are needed.

Waaaaait a second. Hold up.

Isn't your idea to put them in barracks where they won't want to have orgies? Isn't putting a bunch of same sex homosexuals in the same room... the opposite of that? Like putting straight men and women together? Which is the situation you were explicitly trying to avoid from the get-go? I'm just trying to figure your position out, man.

And anyway, I'd really have to question this erotic misunderstanding premise you have going here. Now, I haven't been in the armed forces but I would assume that since the United States Military isn't a low-budget sitcom, it... wouldn't be much of a problem at all, to put it bluntly.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying I agree with his argument, but nowhere did he say he thought gays would attack anyone. Your arguments will be more credible if you don't strawman, Connor.

And he's right in that the military does segregate people in barracks due to sexuality, ie men and women.

[Lusankya]

I'm curious as to how Chocula expects to be able to separate all the gays in the first place. Does the repeal of DADT suddenly mean that all the gays in the army are going to come out of the closet just so they can be marked with a pink triangle different barracks designation, leave behind all their straight comrades in arms, and possibly face rejection by their family?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm curious as to how Chocula expects to be able to separate all the gays in the first place. Does the repeal of DADT suddenly mean that all the gays in the army are going to come out of the closet just so they can be marked with a pink triangle different barracks designation, leave behind all their straight comrades in arms, and possibly face rejection by their family?

There is that.

There's no way to enforce it without mandating that all gays come out of the closet, and no way to enforce that without some very invasive investigation of peoples' private lives.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm not saying I agree with his argument, but nowhere did he say he thought gays would attack anyone. Your arguments will be more credible if you don't strawman, Connor.

What the fuck else are "misunderstandings and lapses of military discipline and order" supposed to mean pray tell? Sending each other nasty notes?

[Bakustra]

I'm not saying I agree with his argument, but nowhere did he say he thought gays would attack anyone. Your arguments will be more credible if you don't strawman, Connor.

And he's right in that the military does segregate people in barracks due to sexuality, ie men and women.

You can't fucking segregate gays and lesbians by sexuality unless you give them their own individual rooms or make it so that there's one gay guy and one lesbian to a room, and giving bisexuals individual rooms. So that part of his argument is literally nonsense, and is stupid anyways- I'm going to bet that anybody who looks on the military as some sort of live porno is going to be washed out fairly quickly, and if they aren't, that's not something that you can resolve with discrimination, but rather with having actual standards.

Also, what exactly do you think "breaches of discipline" means, in that context? Unauthorized card games? Alcohol on duty?

[Count Chocula]

So your argument is actually "Its okay to treat the gays differnetly because I'm affraid they'lll attack me in a frenzy of sexual lust?" Or something equally silly? Because I guess Gays have no standards or ethics or self control or something.

Edit: Or maybe you're saying that the straight guys are going to be insecure at having gays in the same barracks with them and will be driven to attack them out of sheer homophobia? That's the only thing I can think of 'misunderstandings' meaning.

No, no, NO, Connor. I'm saying that a gay man giving a straight man lustful glances in the (yes I was Air Force and they're communal) shower will result in the STRAIGHT guy confronting the GAY guy. In other words, a young-dumb-full-of-come straight guy is likely to take just as much objection to a fellow male enlisted giving him the hairy eyeball as a girl is to take objection to the creep undressing her from across the room. But because the straight guy's a...ummm...guy he's more likely to get physical with his objection than a girl or woman would. That's prejudicial to proper discipline and order.

A barracks full of gay guys, however, would a) already be committed to military service and b) know the orientation of those around them. Those of them with common sense, probably all of them, would get sexy on leave just like their heterosexual counterparts and not have barracks orgies. Sexual orientation has no bearing on military discipline, but comportment does. Separating men and women, and straight and gay men, in barracks seems like a reasonable precaution to keep everyone's head in the military game while they're on duty. It, to me at least, makes proper comportment easier to accomplish.

Yikes. I'm a straight guy, so I've undoubtedly gone way beyond my level of competence to judge the scenario. Would anyone else care to contribute?