What happens when an all-male organization like the Catholic clergy allows homosexuality to become institutionally entrenched? The answer is organizational and moral chaos. The priests start hitting on the altar boys. So-called "lavender mafias" emerge in certain parishes and dioceses. There are occasional, and outrageous, instances of pedophilia. Young homosexuals find the institution of the clergy a marvelous "cover," not to mention an excellent place to meet other homosexuals. And the higher-ups, at a loss for what to do, act to hush up what the Bible would have called these dens of iniquity.
If you doubt that the Catholic Church has a problem with all this, ask Cardinal Roger Mahony, who just announced that the Los Angeles diocese will pay $660 million to more than 500 victims of sex abuse. In the vast majority of cases we aren't dealing with pedophilia--an extremely rare disorder that is no more prevalent in the Catholic church than it is elsewhere in society--but rather with homosexual priests taking advantage of their authority to seduce teenage parishoners and altar boys.
Now consider what would happen to that other predominantly-male organization, the U.S. military, if it got rid of "don't ask, don't tell" and allowed open homosexual relations between soldiers. We can easily imagine all the problems, but is there an upside? The Spartans are one of the few groups in history to allow homosexuals in the military. They tried to use it to fighting advantage. The idea was that men would be more willing to die for the sake of partners to whom they had become sexually attached. So the Spartans fought as couples, with each young soldier romantically linked to an older veteran. Typically the older veteran played the "male" or dominant role and the youthful recruit the "female" or passive role in the relationship.
Putting on my Clausewitz hat, I've been thinking about how this strategy could be employed by the American military. Should the United States army set up gay platoons, where camaraderie is based not on team loyalty and male friendship but rather on sexual partnering among veteran soldiers and new recruits? I mentioned this to a friend in the armed forces and he could only forsee one benefit. He noted that if the American military gets soundly whipped in a future engagement, we could always laugh off the defeat and say, 'Well, yeah, but you only beat a bunch of gays."
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 6)
76. Dinesh makes me really hate dotheads.
Bubba S. at 12:44AM on Jul 24th 2007
77. How many differences from the original can you see?
Straights in the Military? Ask Cardinal Balony
by Philip Tucker,
after Dinesh D'Souza
What happens when an all-gay organization like the Catholic clergy allows heterosexuality to become institutionally entrenched? The answer is organizational and moral chaos. The nuns start hitting on the altar boys. So-called "high yellow mafias" emerge in certain parishes and dioceses. There are occasional, and outrageous, instances of pedophilia. Young heterosexuals find the institution of the clergy a marvelous "cover," not to mention an excellent place to meet other heterosexuals. And the higher-ups, at a loss for what to do, act to hush up what the Bible would have called these dens of iniquity.
If you doubt that the Catholic Church has a problem with all this, ask Cardinal Roger Balony, who just announced that the Los Angeles diocese will pay $660 million to more than 500 victims of sex abuse. In the vast majority of cases we aren't dealing with pedophilia--an extremely rare disorder that is no more prevalent in the Catholic church than it is elsewhere in society--but rather with heterosexual priests taking advantage of their authority to seduce teenage parishoners.
Now consider what would happen to that other predominantly-gay organization, the military, if it got rid of "don't kiss, don't
tell" and allowed open heterosexual relations between soldiers. We can easily imagine all the problems, but is there an upside? The Mericans are one of the few groups in history to allow heterosexuals in the military. They tried to use it to fighting advantage. The idea was that people would be more willing to die for the sake of partners to whom they had become sexually attached. So the Mericans fought as couples, with each young soldier romantically linked to an older veteran. Typically the male played the "older veteran" or dominant role and the female the "youthful recruit" or passive role in the relationship.
Putting on my Lackewitz hat, I've been thinking about how this strategy could be employed by our own military. Should the army set up straight platoons, where camaraderie is based not on team loyalty and friendship but rather on sexual partnering among veteran soldiers and new recruits? I mentioned this to a friend in the armed forces and he could only forsee one benefit. He noted that if the military gets soundly whipped in a future engagement, we could always laugh off the defeat and say, 'Well, yeah, but you only beat a bunch of niggers."
Philip Tucker at 11:46PM on Aug 23rd 2007
78. D'Sousa,
I read your apology, and it just doesn't wash. There is a clear intention here to equate gays in the military and pedophiles in the priesthood. You can deny it until Hell freezes over, and it still won't be believable. You are a sick, ignorant wing nut.
Bill Arney at 10:00PM on Aug 24th 2007
79. I've known some gay men in a maximum security prison that could rip your arms off, beat you to death with them and then sodomize your still warm body. D'Souza might like to interview them.
michael valentne at 9:49PM on Aug 24th 2007