My point was simply that since Honors was not a self-identified gay man, he doesn't get a pass with anti-gay remarks or portrayals of anti-gay behavior.
I still think it's a real poor use of taxpayer dollars to produce videos either to induce or, far less likely, sublimate self-relief. They weren't particularly entertaining or instructive.
Hi, Sandy. I know this is "Hot Topics" and we are all having a civil back and forth. Unfortunately for me, in your case, I said when I joined the forum, that I found your command of the language greatly to my liking. You have a quick and incisive mind, and so I do feel uneasy responding with some disagreement. I really feel fidgety about this and also about my continuing posts, and so may go to the Cullen Cafe, as I have been so troubled by this issue and do not want to over-post here.
About the part I've bolded, above: I actually believe the military budget is a direct threat to our future. It is hormongous. But when it comes to money spent for veterans health care, or body armor against roadside bombs, and yes, keeping up morale, the expenses are, IMO, justifiable. Sandy, I am a military brat and live in a military city, and I know these guys need to let off stress with recreational facilities and even goofy videos.
I have hoped that with your particular understanding of words and nuances of words (and this is not flattery....I don't say anything I don't mean) that you could re-think this video issue and at the very least, see the difference between probably adolescent humor, and, from the facts I have posted above, the wrongfulness of a quick jump in viral reporting to the promiscuous and mind-boggling use of the "homophobic" word.
Going further, about his not being gay and therefore not getting a pass on alleged slurs, first, they are alleged. In fact, he posed himself as not averse to being seen as gay (hence the chaplains' long grudge, which is possiby going to be out there formally, in the news, in the ongoing investigation). In the shower scene between two men, he....grinned. Guilty of poor judgment in
de-toxing the tensions on a ship, yes. Being anti-gay: not a chance. If nothing else, his clear liking for people of all kinds, showed no inclinations, there.
Then, to your very understandable distinction between the use of some words by a minority that ought not to be used by those not of that minority, I not only understand, I have, there, a hurt. On another forum, a prominent straight lady, extremely supportive of gay rights in her country and around the world.....slipped. I was not in the "Was Ennis Gay?" thread...it was elsewhere.
But she jumped in, and didn't say Ennis was gay, and didn't say Ennis was queer (a term now more acceptable), she said : just like Ennis, some people need to accept, that they are...
just a queer. I quickly objected; she quickly edited her post. I do understand, some people supporting a liberation movement still harbor a need to feel superior, and that it can slip out. I still like her. She doesn't like me.
My point is, at least to me, relevant. Some so-called supporters of the freedom movement retain residual homophobia and a sense of superiority, and it is unacceptable but, IMO, forgivable as part of human nature. Captain Honors showed zero sense of superiority and great humor and acceptance, although in a funky kind of way. But erupting from a prominent Brokie....hidden contempt. I much prefer, then, the Captain's deeply ingrained balance and good-will, to the sudden sneers of so-called allies.
I do apologize for my posts. This issue has been a bleeding ouch for me. And, I would probably do better to go to the Cullen Cafe. Even so, Sandy, you did bring the issue out for closer inspection. And I still admire that, sincerely.