Pace "Justifies" DADT
Sometimes the news — not to mention the people making the news — is just so breath-takingly stupid that comment seems unnecessary:
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts "are immoral," akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.
Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.
[Aamer Madhani, "Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral' ", Chicago Tribune, 12 March 2007.]
One wonders how merely being gay can be "immoral" behavior. Some straight people of little imagination seem to think that being gay is somehow being sex, which must be why their little brains melt down when young people who have not yet experienced sex say that they are gay. One wonders again why some straight people of little imagination are so obsessed with sex in general and gay sex in particular.
I suppose we should be grateful that homosexuality has moved down the list towards adultery and away from some sort of capital abomination — although adultery used to be high on the list of capital offenses to some of the fundamentalist who love to condemn gay people. Do you think attitudes like the General's have an adverse effect on unit cohesion? (I wonder how similar are the thoughts of this General and the General in my previous post?)
As someone pointed out, this does rather beg the question of whether the General's own evidently stunted moral upbringing should be the basis of our country's military policy.
While we're on the topic, I think I'll mention the Service Members' Legal Defense Network's statement on the General's remarks.
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 at 15.40
Permalink
Pace today says he won't apologize, and I don't think "swift and sincere" apologies can be compelled. Belated and insincere ones can be dragged out of people feeling enough pressure of disapproval. But when they're as powerful as Gen. Pace, that doesn't mean much in real terms.
I think Pace said so much because it's been on his mind and he wanted to get it out. I think he expressed sincerely held lifelong beliefs. I don't like or agree with them, and find them logically flawed.
But maybe it's just as well he did speak his mind clearly and forthrightly, so people know his attitude. Every time something like this happens, it causes more people to think and discuss this matter.
At the risk of sounding Pollyannish, I think most Americans intend to be fair and reasonable. At basis, how fair and reasonable is it to say it's OK for people to serve in the military, risk and maybe give their lives, while having to keep secret a basic human drive?
The answer, of course, is not fair at all.
BTW, I came at this from another angle yesterday at Oh!pinion.