good article and kudos to the General for standing up for his right to have an opinion. the media totally ignores the fact that Gen. Pace said that homosexuality is no less immoral than a husband or wife being unfaithful.
Gen. Pace “firestorm” just the latest Media Nontroversy
by Glib Fortuna @ 10:26 am.
Filed under 1st Amendment, Homosexual Agenda, News
Water is wet, ice is cold, adultery and sex acts between two people of the same sex are widely considered immoral. This newest “outrage” was reported with all the dutiful breathlessness we’ve come to expect from the CNNs and MSNBCs of the world when a favored group gets “offended.” But let’s be honest. This isn’t a story.
First off, Gen Pace didn’t call “homosexuality” immoral any more than he called “adulterality” immoral. He was very specific in saying that the acts are immoral. Observe:
“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
Apparently, one is not even permitted to express opinions held by the majority of Americans today, an even larger majority of active duty military and nearly every society in the history of mankind. What’s more, Gen. Pace’s positions on adultery and and homosexual conduct are covered in the Uniform Code of Military Justice as punishable offenses for the precise reason Gen. Pace names. Nonetheless, you’d think he’d pulled a Hardaway.
Associating homosexual acts and adultery is perfectly rational. He may have added fraternization and other intra-unit sexual relationships to complete the list. All of these acts are forbidden or at least seriously frowned upon because immoralityof this sort is a quick-spreading morale extinguisher. As a matter of fact, even an UNMARRIED Marine may be charged with adultery if he fools around with a woman who is married. Reason being, of course, that it seems that most adultery in the armed forces occurs between active duty troops and the spouses of other troops (I’m trying to think of one case in my 10 years as a Marine that this wasn’t the case). Gee, that can’t break up a unit can it? Adultery carries a maximum penalty of dishonorable discharge (the equivalent of having a felony conviction on your record), forfeiture of all pay and benefits and confinement for one year. Advancing immoral conduct that causes a “measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember” is untenable for a military unit. A known homosexual relationship in a unit would have a similar impact. So do supervisor-subordinate relationships.
Should we lift all of these restrictions because a certain pampered, wealthy, ultrasensitive, disproportionately powerful political movement gets its feelings hurt when someone calls certain behavior immoral? Of course not. Reasonable restrictions on sexual behavior in the armed forces are wise and rational. This has never been controversial until now. That pointing out one of the main reasons for the policy has been met with all the faux indignation that defines our modern-day cultural inquisitors demonstrates the utter lack of tolerance for any ideas that offend the extreme Leftist sensibilities of dominant media voices.
Perhaps Gen. Pace should pull a Max Cleland: “Which of you reporters served in Vietnam? If you haven’t served in Vietnam, you can’t criticize me or tell me how to fight a war or tell me how to think about military policy.” If it works for the Left…
Gen. Pace has absolutely nothing to apologize for.
Update: More damning evidence that universities, and “J-schools” in particular, do not produce many graduates endowed with critical thinking ability. See this article about the condemnation of Gen. Pace’s remarks by microphone-addicted Sen. John Warner.
Military experts, however, say morality was never the basis of the policy, which says gays may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientations private and don’t engage in homosexual activity.
“Morality was never the basis of the policy,” said retired Gen. Jack Keane. “It was about unit cohesion.”
The ever-present “expert” who rarely fails to confirm a mush-headed journalist’s worldview. Yes, unit cohesion resulting from good order and discipline is the intended result of restraints on sexual condcut in the armed forces. But what basis, other than a moral judgment about certain behavior, could be used in deciding what sexual conduct would or would not detract from the ideal vision of unit cohesion? There is no other basis. Of course these policies are based on “morality.”
Update: It’s a shame that Gen. Pace is being forced to tap dance.
“I made two points in support of the policy during the interview. One, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” allows individuals to serve this nation; and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts.
It sure does, sir, it sure does. It’s shame that, as a nation, we are no longer to tell the truth about why things are the way they are. It’s even worse that a person’s convictions, if they conflict with the prevailing PC orthodoxy, may not be uttered publicly without fear of pound-of-flesh retribution. This just shows that you need not say things like “I hate gay people,” or refer to a presidential candidate as the “New F-Word” to provoke the seething wrath of the radical homosexual movement and their bidding-doers in the media. All you need to do is disagree with the uncritical promotion and the rock-n-roll-all-night celebration of aberrant sexual behavior.
