General Pace and Gays

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).