How is this Possible?

I came across this picture while I was browsing my Reader feed.  It’s from Kathryn Finney’s (The Budget Fashionista) post about the Republican National Convention.

I don’t question the fact that this exists – freedom of speech and all, but I question what the sign means.  I’m not a super political person and am not as informed as I should be.  I have my beliefs and I don’t spread them around.  I’m all for other people shouting their beliefs out.  I like to ponder ideas that are opposite of my own.  It opens up my brain and makes me verify that my ideas are good for me.  So, I don’t really want this to be a political thread.  Not that all (read zero) the readers of this blog will respond, anyway.

It’s been 24 hours since I saw this sign.  I still don’t get it and trust me, I’ve been thinking about it.  I finally asked David because he actually watches the news and reads the newspaper, unlike me who finds most of those things depressing or boring.  David’s guess* was that if LBGT people know national secrets, then they could be blackmailed by our country’s enemies to reveal those secrets.  Hmmmh.  Blackmailed how?  He explained that the enemy would threaten to “out” the LBGT if they didn’t spill our country’s beans.  This assumes that they aren’t “out” already.

Does that make sense to you?  It doesn’t make sense to me.  Don’t the people who made this sign realize that if we didn’t have a bias against LBGTs then there would be no fuel for the blackmail?  That the sign-makers’ bias is the reason for the threat to national security?

Are the sign-makers suggesting that the government have some sort of “outing” test for their employees?  If so, what would that test entail?  This is a sexual matter, plain and simple.  How do you prove that the opposite sex turns you on?  Would employees be required to prove that they have had sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex?  The possible testing procedures that are pouring through my mind are scary.

I would like to think that sexual testing would never happen.  I don’t even know if David’s theory is correct.  I know that there are people who don’t approve of LBGTs.  This bias is most often because of religious reasons.  Religion is a personal thing and you are allowed to believe whatever the hell you want.  However, the extrapolation of religious beliefs that must take place in order for this sign to be made, is exponential.



*I’m assuming his guess is correct because I can find no other explanation for the statement.  David could be wrong and there is a much more reasonable explanation.  If so, comment below because I would love to hear it.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s