Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest of them all in the United States military system, has declared that he is against having homosexuals serve in the military, not because it’s bad for the military, but because he personally thinks that homosexuality is immoral. I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” he says. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way.”
So, it’s bad for the United States to have policies that say it is okay to be immoral in any way, General Pace? How about other forms of immorality, like… um… killing people?
Of course the military won’t stand against killing people. In fact, the military teaches huge numbers of Americans exactly how to kill in the most efficient way possible.
If the military won’t stand against the immorality of killing people, why is it so eager to stand against what it perceives as sexual immorality? Are we supposed to believe that the immorality of killing people relatively minor compared to having a kind of sex other than the kinds of sex approved of by military generals?
We in the United States have a government that teaches people how to kill, but opposes teaching people about how to have sex without spreading disease. Our government spends billions upon billions of dollars every year distributing weapons designed for killing people all around the world, to people and to foreign governments, but it opposes distributing condoms.
I’m not a psychologist or anything, but this looks like a pretty clear case of transference of guilt onto a convenient scapegoat.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Morality doesn’t apply to economic or military policy anymore. Just sexual behavior.
I guess I must have recycled that one.
An AOL News poll showed nearly 271,000 votes as of 1:45pm EDT. The margin is two to one in favor of SUPPORT for General Pace’s comments regarding gays in the military.
How do you feel about Pace’s comments?
Agree 65% (~176,000)
Disagree 33%
Not sure 3%
Total Votes: 270,644
I applaud General Peter Pace for taking the correct stand on this matter. His comments are right on target. There is NO REASON for him to apologize to anyone. His personal beliefs are his own and NO ONE need apologize for their personal beliefs. While I agree that he should be loving and respectful in his statements and (more importantly) actions, being forced to accept and celebrate the choice of homosexual behavior is NOT something anyone should be confronted with — military or civilian.
These gay advocacy groups need to sit down and shut up! There is NOTHING “outrageous” or “insensitive” in what General Pace said in the interview. I listened to part of his comments. He was soft-spoken and respectful, but also firm in his resolve. Pace answered one question with a very straightforward and truthful answer, “The US Military’s mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence, cooperation amongst its members, and the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence and therefore is not supported within the US military. I’ll leave it at that.”
Homosexuality *is* an immoral act. It is NOT natural, normal or moral. The lifestyle choice is rife with promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity — all matters that point to trust, confidence and cooperation. General Pace should be applauded for standing his ground and speaking the truth.
I, personally, plan to be active in the fight against these homosexual advocacy groups as they seek to villainize General Pace. Here’s hoping you will join the fight as well. It’s high time conservatives (especially Christians) stand up for our beliefs and convictions.
Oh! An online poll!
Scientific? No.
Biased? Yes.
It figures that this sort of thing would be used as justification for attacking people on the basis of their sexuality.
CharlieJ, you completely failed to address the content of this article. You’re merely making assertions, not dealing with the underlying lack of reasoned argument behind Peter Pace’s immoral bigotry.
That’s the problem with your “fight,” CharlieJ. You can’t see the difference between a) believing what you believe and b) insisting that everybody act in accordance with your beliefs. You have the right to the former. Under our constitution (see “equal protection under law”) you don’t have the right to the latter.
To move from procedure to substance, your “NOT natural, normal or moral” statement isn’t accurate. Homosexuality is “natural” (it is part of the world, and not introduced by transdimensional aliens, and is an activity carried out by huge numbers of animal species including the human animal), “normal” (in the literal sense of normal meaning that, yes, it is rather frequently carried out as an activity, being one of the more common sexual modalities), and “moral” (it is an activity that is laden with value).
“Homosexuality *is* an immoral act.”? I think *not*, CharlieJ. Homosexuality you are born with. Buttfucking is an act.
“The lifestyle choice is rife with promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity”…looks like CharlieJ is in favor of gay marriage, then. The antidote to all of that playing the field stuff is acceptance of gays who make a public lifetime commitment.
CharilieJ’s arguments could be used to try to keep any religious or ethnic group out of anything based on an accident of birth. That he has chosen gays as his target points to a personal case of homophobia.
Honestly, how does IrregularTimes find these people?
Homosexuality is as natural and probably has as many advantages in reality as infertility.
It gives the world another set of committed couples who are able to take care of children unwanted by the couples that produce them.
Animals of all species have homosexuals, possibly the lesbians less pronounced, but definitely in existence. It’s not just a matter of dominance.
Also; prostate gland and clit show that there IS physical compatibility with same-sex sex.
Biological, natural, and physically practical. How much more do you need?
You can google the examples if you like. There’s a pair of gay penguins in New York zoo, a lot of research going into homosexual sheep, and much more besides.
Personally I don’t find it any more comfortable to be “confronted” with overweight men wanting to go out with me than to have women hitting on me, but I hardly try to have laws set against them.
Heterosexuality gets people pregnant. It spreads more disease and the massive majority of sex crimes are heterosexual. Domestic violence also tends to be between men and women. And more heterosexuals cause car crashes. And plane crashes. I say we ban it.