{"id":20924,"date":"2013-01-07T02:48:04","date_gmt":"2013-01-07T05:48:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=20924"},"modified":"2016-11-26T02:01:34","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T05:01:34","slug":"homosexual-websites-claim-military-censorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/01\/07\/homosexual-websites-claim-military-censorship\/","title":{"rendered":"Homosexual Websites Claim Military Censorship"},"content":{"rendered":"

A few homosexual advocacy websites have used their military members’ access to DoD networks to claim the US military is censoring websites<\/a> identified as “LGBT.”<\/p>\n

It\u2019s bad enough the United States Department of Defense censors Towleroad and AMERICAblog \u2013 banning the gay civil rights Web sites from being accessed on DOD computers \u2013 and it\u2019s even worse that the Pentagon has no problem permitting their computers to access Ann Coulter\u2019s and Rush Limbaugh\u2019s hate-filled Web sites…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While claiming persecution is all the rage, this is actually really<\/em> old news.\u00a0 The ACLU has been going after libraries and public schools for years for using the same web filtering software — BlueCoat and its categories<\/a> — the DoD uses.\u00a0 So much ire has been aimed at BlueCoat it has revised the wording of its filter and made a point of publishing its ‘neutral stance’<\/a> on the topic<\/a>.\u00a0 It only provides a service; its customers choose how to employ it.<\/p>\n

Also, as noted before (when an Air Force Sergeant tried to get ChristianFighterPilot.com blocked from military servers<\/a> as “hate speech”), it is difficult to claim some form of institutional persecution over the way the DoD runs its information systems.\u00a0 It is a bit more…complex…than that.\u00a0 Besides,\u00a0the US military is not obligated <\/em>to allow <\/em>certain websites onto its systems merely because DADT was repealed.<\/p>\n

Still, it seems the Pentagon has taken the unusual step of officially responding to the complaints<\/a> — something\u00a0atheist Jason Torpy\u00a0noticed, spurring him to see if he could coat-tail the scandal<\/a> by claiming atheists, too, were discriminated against in favor of Christian (not religious<\/em>, but Christian<\/em>) websites.\u00a0 Complaints or not, in the end, the military is free to control its information systems as it sees fit.<\/p>\n

The greatest irony, however, is the blindness some people have to their own image — namely, homosexuals who consider anything labeled “LGBT” to be inherently benign.\u00a0 In light of current scandals ongoing in the military, the DoD is particularly sensitive<\/a> to\u00a0issues of\u00a0a sexual nature.\u00a0 In that regard, the complaints about homosexual websites being “censored” are poorly timed, as a website that proudly identifies itself as “gay” or “LBGT” is, by definition<\/em>, sexually-oriented.\u00a0 To claim otherwise is to say an ESPN site isn’t sports<\/em>-oriented.<\/p>\n

After all, when a website, group, or organization proclaims themselves “LGBT,” they are choosing to publicly associate by their sexual behavior.\u00a0 That the characterization makes for awkward dinner conversation does not change its truth.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n