General Pace and Gays
20/March/2007 02:21 Filed in: Sexuality
General Peter
Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made
statements this last week, that from a moral
standpoint were offensive for many reasons other than
the one's that were reported. When asked about the
"don't ask-don't tell" policy of the armed serviced,
yes, he said that it was his opinion that
homosexuality was immoral. That statement alone is
the one on which the media focused and that is
unfortunate. Being offended by someone's moral
opinion is rather silly and for those who truly care
about this country, liberals should have known better
than to get sucked into this trap. By debating the
"morality" of homosexuality, many made the point for
the conservatives. The truly offensive things said by
the General were that the purpose of the army is not
to"condone immoral acts" and
also that he said, "I do not believe that the armed
forces of the United States are well served by a
saying through our policies that it's OK to be
immoral in any way." Believing something to be
personally moral or immoral is the right of every
citizen of this country. But is the General saying
that the purpose of the Army is to be moral? Or, is
he saying that accepting homosexuals into the service
makes the purpose of the army immoral? The purpose of
the army is actually not to decide for the public
what is moral or immoral. Ironically, since even Rush
Limbaugh says that the purpose of the army is to kill
and break things, it is clear that an army is often
more effective when morally desensitized--An army
that can kill without compunction. General Pace could
have made a more effective argument if he had simply
pontificated on the blight of co-ed shower
situations. As it was, his decision to defend the
policy on "moral" grounds was a lot like getting a
lecture on diet from Luciano Pavarotti (believe it or
not he had a chapter in his first book on this
subject).