Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

[dr. what]

Yahoo

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

He said he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

With Democrats in charge of Congress, Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has introduced legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly serving homosexuals.

___

On the Net:

Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com

[Big Orange]

Not news.

[SirNitram]

Not news.

On what possible basis?

[Wicked Pilot]

On what possible basis?

Whether or not to allow homosexuals to serve is not his decision.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Not news.

So?! Calling a bigot a fucking bigot can only be a Good Thing. I'm glad that cunt's getting all this attention!

[SirNitram]

On what possible basis?

Whether or not to allow homosexuals to serve is not his decision.

Didn't say it was. I was wondering when a major General bashing homosexuality suddenly wasn't newsworthy.

[Darth Wong]

To a typical ethicist, "immoral" means that it can be shown to be harmful to society in some way. To a typical right-wing Christian, "immoral" means "I really don't like it".

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I was wondering when a major General bashing homosexuality suddenly wasn't newsworthy.

When someone doesn't like the fact it is newsworthy, Nitram */me glares at BO above*

[Wicked Pilot]

I was wondering when a major General bashing homosexuality suddenly wasn't newsworthy.

I don't subscribed to any kind of fine line in the sand defining what is and isn't newsworthy. So I would say this is maybe more newsworthy than the Anna Nichole circus, less newsworthy than the ongoing war in Iraq, the Walter Reed clusterfuck, Haliburton robbing the taxpayers and fleeing to Dubai, and etc and etc. I have just as much authority as General Pace does when it comes to allowing homosexuals to serve, yet my comments don't make the papers and get discussed on the board, so why should I consider his shooting his mouth off of any higher newsworthiness?

[Darth Wong]

I was wondering when a major General bashing homosexuality suddenly wasn't newsworthy.

I don't subscribed to any kind of fine line in the sand defining what is and isn't newsworthy. So I would say this is maybe more newsworthy than the Anna Nichole circus, less newsworthy than the ongoing war in Iraq, the Walter Reed clusterfuck, Haliburton robbing the taxpayers and fleeing to Dubai, and etc and etc. I have just as much authority as General Pace does when it comes to allowing homosexuals to serve, yet my comments don't make the papers and get discussed on the board, so why should I consider his shooting his mouth off of any higher newsworthiness?

You seemed reasonable until you seriously suggested that you can't understand why the public statements of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are more newsworthy than those of an obscure pilot. The man was giving an interview to a newspaper, and decided to make a public policy statement on homosexuality. This is newsworthy for two reasons:

1) It is indicative of the kind of attitudes which persist at the top of the organization.

2) It is indicative of the hubris of this individual to inject his personal beliefs into a job-related public interview in a highly unprofessional manner.

[FSTargetDrone]

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

...

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

Hm. I believe bigoted statements directed at individuals involved in consenting, same-sex relationships, likening them to philanderers is immoral, but whatinafuk do I know.

I wonder what the general's position is on the military's lowering standards to accept recruits who have been convicted of crimes. I guess that's less worse, somehow. Not as immoral?

[Sriad]

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we
should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

It's good to be reminded that these people think sex between men is worse than holding prisoners in extranational prisons to deprive them of their right to due process.

[Flagg]

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we
should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

It's good to be reminded that these people think sex between men is worse than holding prisoners in extranational prisons to deprive them of their right to due process.

That's just giving brown non-Christians whats coming to them.

I love how he equated homosexuality with adultery, though. You take that to it's logical conclusion and he just called Newt Gingrich a faggot in a national newpaper.

[Coyote]

I love how he equated homosexuality with adultery, though. You take that to it's logical conclusion and he just called Newt Gingrich a faggot in a national newpaper.

He and Anne Coulter can Indian leg-wrestle for dominance, then.

Oh, wait, that would be homosexual. Nevermind.

In a way, it "isn't news" in that it isn't any big surprise. The gays-in-the-military thing has been hovering on the sidelines of public attention for some time... and oddly enough, it is the readiness problems of the Iraq War that have brought it slowly back to the forefront.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I have just as much authority as General Pace does when it comes to allowing homosexuals to serve, yet my comments don't make the papers and get discussed on the board, so why should I consider his shooting his mouth off of any higher newsworthiness?

Perhaps it's due to the fact that he's a general, has millions serving under him, a decent number of which are homosexual or bisexual, and even if the statement doesn't have any direct effect on policy, the fact that he's obviously an influential figure and somewhat a speaker on policy *will* have an effect on peoples' behaviour. Unless you're claiming that if you were gay, the general who's sending you off to war stating that you're immoral and don't deserve to be shown in public holds no more weight than some random pilot you've never heard of saying the same thing.

[Wicked Pilot]

You seemed reasonable until you seriously suggested that you can't understand why the public statements of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are more newsworthy than those of an obscure pilot.

Officers down at the lower levels are the ones who, while not having a say in the rules, decide when and when not to enforce the policy. Some leaders are very by the book and will shitcan someone at the first sign of gayness, and some are very laid back and will look the other way to the max extent possible. Maybe to the guy on the street what the Chairman says is the end all to be all, but for the guy in the barracks it's what his boss, and his boss's boss says, that really matters.

1) It is indicative of the kind of attitudes which persist at the top of the organization.

That was obvious back in 2000 when Bush got elected.

2) It is indicative of the hubris of this individual to inject his personal beliefs into a job-related public interview in a highly unprofessional manner.

What does it matter, the guy's probably going to leave with Bush in 2008 with the 'gay agenda' marching steadily on, uneffected in the slightest.

Perhaps it's due to the fact that he's a general, has millions serving under him, a decent number of which are homosexual or bisexual, and even if the statement doesn't have any direct effect on policy, the fact that he's obviously an influential figure and somewhat a speaker on policy *will* have an effect on peoples' behaviour.

Bush sent people off to war, and it's his threat of veto which will keep gays for serving openly, and he's been in office for over six years now.

Unless you're claiming that if you were gay, the general who's sending you off to war stating that you're immoral and don't deserve to be shown in public holds no more weight than some random pilot you've never heard of saying the same thing.

If I were a squadron commander my statements would hold a thousand times more weight to my people then what Pace said. It's the Captains, Majors, and Lt Colonels who really matter.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I don't think pulling rank here should be an issue. I believe my words should have more basis for being featured in the news on the pretext of my having a brain functioning between the ears.

Sadly, reality doesn't seem to follow that line and it seems ever more likely as the days go by that not one person in power within the US is without a Bible or a bloody idiot. Or worse still, a smart and amoral person playing the system. This general certainly shouldn't be getting any more paycheques.

[Rye]

Yes, homosexuality is immoral and we can't have people hired to shoot at and kill other human beings being immoral.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, homosexuality is immoral and we can't have people hired to shoot at and kill other human beings being immoral.

Duh! It's only immoral if the enemy do it. Remember, it's the "Department of Defense", which is good, not the War Office. When was the last time the Bible said it wasn't good to teach your enemies a thing or two, hmm?

Just like torture is only good and wholesome when done by the good guys, that being us.

[Lord Zentei]

Top general: Remarks on gays were 'personal moral views'

POSTED: 2:30 p.m. EDT, March 13, 2007

Story Highlights
• NEW: Gen. Peter Pace says he focused too much on personal views in remarks
• Staff earlier said general had no plans to apologize for remarks on gays
• Pace told newspaper that homosexual acts are immoral
• Advocacy group says comments disrespectful to 65,000 gay troops

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, said Tuesday he should have focused more on military policy and less on his own opinion when he told a newspaper homosexual acts are immoral.

His remarks drew opposition from some lawmakers and an advocacy group.

Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Chicago Tribune on Monday that he supports the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct," Pace said in a statement. "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."

Earlier Tuesday, senior staff members for Pace said the general had no plans to apologize for his comments, which included comparisons between homosexuality and adultery -- behavior that he said is prosecuted in the military.

"My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral," Pace told the Tribune. "I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct."

Pace also told the paper, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.

"So the 'don't ask, don't tell' [policy] allows an individual to serve the country ... if we know about immoral acts, regardless of committed by who, then we have a responsibility.

"I do not believe that the armed forces are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way, not just with regards to homosexual acts," the Joint Chiefs chairman said.

"So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity," he added.

Lawmakers take issue with Pace

Sen. John Warner of Virginia -- the ranking Republican on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee -- expressed his opposition to Pace's opinion.

According to Warner aide John Ullyot, the senator said, "I strongly disagree with the chairman's views that homosexuality is immoral."

Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, author of a Military Readiness Enhancement Act that would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, said Tuesday that Pace should recognize the harmful effect the ban is having on the military.

"Gen. Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military," Meehan said in a statement. "He needs to recognize that support for overturning 'don't ask, don't tell' is strong and growing."

Advocacy group: General should apologize

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group that represents military personnel affected by the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, demanded Tuesday that Pace apologize for his remarks.

"Gen. Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, the group's executive director. "Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve Gen. Pace's praise, not his condemnation."

The statement added, "It is inappropriate for the chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks."

Asked if Pace would apologize, his senior staff members said the general stands by his statements as an expression of his personal opinion, and he has no intention of apologizing.

President Clinton signed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy into law in 1994. The military has supported the policy, citing its belief that homosexuality is detrimental to good order and discipline in the armed forces.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Isn't Pace supposed to be supporting these troops instead of harming their morale (and thereby aiding and abetting the Enemy) with this hate speech? Sixty-five thousand troops, that's an entire "Surge" worth of troops, being told by their own commander they're immoral for off-duty activity caused by biological imperatives and hurts no one.

During a war.


Great move, General Hatemonger.

[Lord Zentei]

Isn't Pace supposed to be supporting these troops instead of harming their morale (and thereby aiding and abetting the Enemy) with this hate speech? Sixty-five thousand troops, that's an entire "Surge" worth of troops, being told by their own commander they're immoral for off-duty activity caused by biological imperatives and hurts no one.

During a war.


Great move, General Hatemonger.

Dude, chill. He said it's just his "personal moral views", so that makes it a-ok, lol am i rite?

And of course, the millitary's "belief that homosexuality is detrimental to good order and discipline in the armed forces" is not really supported by anthing either.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Isn't Pace supposed to be supporting these troops instead of harming their morale (and thereby aiding and abetting the Enemy) with this hate speech? Sixty-five thousand troops, that's an entire "Surge" worth of troops, being told by their own commander they're immoral for off-duty activity caused by biological imperatives and hurts no one.

During a war.


Great move, General Hatemonger.

Dude, chill. He said it's just his "personal moral views", so that makes it a-ok, lol am i rite?

LOL! Especially when these personal moral views are blasted into a phalanx of newscameras so everyone can see! Then it's AWESOME!!!

And of course, the military's "belief that homosexuality is detrimental to good order and discipline in the armed forces" is not really supported by anything either.

I hear the Roman army was a good one, as were the Spartans.

[Medic]

And of course, the millitary's "belief that homosexuality is detrimental to good order and discipline in the armed forces" is not really supported by anthing either.

At least one thing beyond sloganeering talking points: the constituent Soldiers, Marines, Seaman, and Airmen of the Armed Forces are drawn from all over America and they're are probably more homophobes than actual homosexuals in the military.

Hell, if not out-and-out homophobes than at the very least enough servicemembers of sufficiently religious or right-wing convictions that they're ought to distrust any known gay Soldiers. I suppose in that vein it's appeasing a lowest-common-denominator of tolerant people but it's neither based on nothing.

[Aaron]

You know I can't help but contrast the General's views and US policy with their neighbor to the North, Canada. Who several years ago made it official policy that gays and lesbians were welcome in the military and we even had our first gay wedding not to long ago and to my knowledge not one charge has been brought against a gay member as a result of their orientation in regards to discipline. The fact that a major First World country continues to pursue this as policy blows my mind.