OMG!!! O’Donnell Compared Gay Sex to Adultery (and Other Idiocy Related to Gay Rights)

Christine O’Donnell makes an adult point about gays in the military during the debate last night.  Think progress plays the tired game of “can you believe she compared gay sex to that?”

Specifically when asked about DADT, she said (assuming Thinkprogress is not actually lying—which is not always a safe assumption with them):

The military already regulates personal behavior in that it doesn’t allow affairs to go on within your chain of command. It does not allow it you are married to have an adulterous affair within the military. So the military already regulates personal behavior because it feels that it is in the best interest of our military readiness.

So Thinkprogress argues this is “compare[ing] allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military to ‘adultery.’”  First, she was not saying allowing gays to serve openly is like the act of adultery.  Second, she was not comparing gay sex to adultery, either.  She was pointing out that the military does in fact regulate private consensual sexual behavior that the law ordinarily would not prohibit, and few would even credibly question that practice.  You can literally go to jail for adultery in the military.  And it makes the point that whatever right to privacy exists in civilian life is significantly reduced in military life.  If you can prohibit adultery in the military without a constitutional problem, it significantly undermines the argument for repealing DADT.

This is a logical and cogent argument.  And Think Progress wants to pretend that it is somehow out of bounds.  Don’t play this game, conservatives.  By the time you are done, you won’t be allowed to make any argument for your side on any subject.

Also for bonus points they denounced her belief that being gay is an “identity disorder” four years ago, explaining that it is a “position that has been universally rejected by science and psychology since the early 1970s.”

Oh, there is a consensus!  Where have we heard that before?

And as usual the consensus is asserted where in fact no science can rightfully exist.  There is no scientific way to establish that homosexuality is normal.  None at all.  The best you can do is compare crime rates of gay people, suicide rates, depression rates, etc. but even that would be of dubious use.  I mean imagine if gay people were more likely to commit suicide.  Those who are inclined to be pro-gay will say that if gay people are more likely to kill themselves, it is because society doesn’t accept them, while those who are opposed to homosexuality will say it is a product of the disorder.  There is no way to prove once and for all who is right.  There is, in short, no science here.  Instead it is psychiatry making a moral judgment about human behavior and dressing it up as science.

In related idiocy, Winds of Change gets all offended that a white house staffer for saying this, talking about the recent death of a gay man:

Jarrett: Well, I think what we've seen over the last few months are some very tragic deaths of young people, our children. And avoidable deaths. They were driven to commit suicide because they were being harassed in school, and driven to do something that no child should ever be driven to do. And in many cases, the parents are doing a good job. Their families are supportive. Before I spoke at the HRC dinner, I met backstage with Tammy Aarberg, her son Andrew. These are good people. They were aware that their son was gay. They embraced him. They loved him. They supported his lifestyle choice.

OMG, that is so horrible!

Yeah, I didn’t get it either for a moment, especially when Armed Liberal says “[i]f a whiteboy GOP staffer made a comment like that, I'm thinking the gay community would be out for blood.”  Then he quotes another blogger complaining that “What an outrage to claim that the 15-year-old Aarberg made a choice to be gay, and that sexual orientation is a lifestyle. Did she get her talking points from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council?”

So we are sure its genetic or at least a completely uncontrollable impulse?  To the point that it is verboten to suggest otherwise?  Ooooookay.

Indeed, the argument is strange given the legal position of gay rights.  Lawrence v. Texas relied on the right to make your own decisions in life, not the theory that because you can’t help it, it must be legal.

And, um, Armed Liberal, what on earth does the race of the person have to do with anything?


Update: And Althouse has the inevitable apology from Jarrett.  And she sees this as a little stupid, too.