FRC Lunancy, Part Two

A few days ago, Andrew Sullivan created The Malkin Award, going to the Polemicist who creates a sentence that is "entirely devised to insult; [is] completely devoid of originality; [has] at least two hoary, dead-as-a-Norwegian-parrot cliches; and assume[s] that readers already agree with the writer. Arbitrary mean-spiritedness wins extra points." Immediately thereafter, Sullivan had to disqualify Ann Coulter because "no one else would stand a chance."

Once prior to this, I have taken notice of an absolutely absurd argument forwarded by the Family Research Council. There have been many, many crazy things said by the FRC in the meantime. However, like Sullivan, I have concluded that to call the FRC out everytime they say something particularly boneheaded would leave me no time to do anything else. But this was too good to resist:

This week's news illustrates a perfect storm of sexual chaos that has descended upon virtually all institutions in American society--including the armed forces. First, a group of former service members sued to overturn the military's ban on homosexual conduct--a cause they believe was aided by an Army court decision overturning the criminal conviction of a soldier who engaged in a heterosexual sex act "in a military barracks." Meanwhile, the judge advocate general of the Air Force may lose his job for "fraternization" with various women, and sexual harassment and assaults are reported to be rampant at the Air Force Academy.

So, the military is embroiled in a sex crazed orgy because of a heterosexual sex act in a barracks and heterosexual harrassment by a senior officer. OK, with you so far. What's the FRC's conclusion?

All these stories suggest that Congress acted wisely when it codified the military ban on homosexual conduct on the grounds that putting people with sexual attractions to one another in conditions of "forced intimacy with little or no privacy" had the potential to undermine "morale, good order and discipline."

Wait...so, because heterosexuals are busy having illicit sex with each other in the military, this suggests that...banning homosexuals in the military was a good idea? I'm honestly at a loss to explain this folks, except to say that it appears that now the FRC would like to blame homosexuals for heterosexual promiscuity even where homosexuals are not involved and are barred from even being actively present in the institution. An impressive feat of tortured logic and ideological incoherence, even from the FRC.