Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

[rhoenix]

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.

What should make everyone in the U.S. wince is that not only Canada, but South fucking Africa is now a more accepting and tolerant country than America when it comes to homosexuals, and gay marriage.

[Coyote]

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....

Yeah, but wasn't there also an attempt to dodge the issue at one time with some proclomation that for classification purposes all soldiers were considered male-- which had the unforseen consequence of making all consensual heterosexual intercourse automatically considered buggery?

If that was true, it almost makes the 'don't ask don't tell' policy seem like a slick public relations victory by comparison...

[Aaron]

Yeah, but wasn't there also an attempt to dodge the issue at one time with some proclomation that for classification purposes all soldiers were considered male-- which had the unforseen consequence of making all consensual heterosexual intercourse automatically considered buggery?

If that was true, it almost makes the 'don't ask don't tell' policy seem like a slick public relations victory by comparison...

Fuck me that's stupid. Someone must have been really harkening back to the days when the force was all male.

[consequences]

It's past stupid, it's past old, it's past just being annoying. Only when it comes to sexual relationships between consenting adults does the military feel the right to arbitrarily dictate what acceptable behavior is, when the behavior in question doesn't harm a single person.

Crap, there has to be a better way to put that. Basically, there's no damned good reason for it, as homosexual relationships between informed consenting adults don't hurt anyone.

[FSTargetDrone]

So are there any other bugaboos with the military in terms of "morals" like "adultery" (how often do you hear that decidedly biblical term used in society?)? Can you get in trouble for adultery if you sleep with a civilian? Or is just for sleeping with another service person? Do they come down as hard on spouse abusers or deadbeat parents?

[Patrick Degan]

The American military establishment can't even manage to rise to the standard of the Royal Navy, in which buggery was one of it's three time-honoured traditions —at least according to Churchill.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I guess they just skip past the "thou shalt not kill" commandment.

[Mr. Coffee]

Is it just me or does General Pace look like an older version of the white recruter dude on the draft board in Hair?

[Mr. Coffee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6JCCayPG7k

The white Captian with the moustache. A young General pace.

[consequences]

So are there any other bugaboos with the military in terms of "morals" like "adultery" (how often do you hear that decidedly biblical term used in society?)? Can you get in trouble for adultery if you sleep with a civilian? Or is just for sleeping with another service person? Do they come down as hard on spouse abusers or deadbeat parents?

If you are married, and have relations with someone other than your spouse, or aren't married, but have relations with someone who is, then it's a violation of regs. As far as I know, outside of those restrictions, public decency, and chain of command and fraternisation issues there's nothing stopping you from having all the sex you want out of wedlock.

Aside from maybe a sense of self-preservation, since three-four years ago a third of the females on my post were supposedly positive for vd. Makes me glad I never succumbed to that particular temptation.

[Medic]

So are there any other bugaboos with the military in terms of "morals" like "adultery" (how often do you hear that decidedly biblical term used in society?)? Can you get in trouble for adultery if you sleep with a civilian? Or is just for sleeping with another service person? Do they come down as hard on spouse abusers or deadbeat parents?

I'm not a paralegal but if I re-enlist you can bet your ass that's what I'll be. But here's the UCMJfor ya. Sodomy for example (even with a member of the opposite sex) is punishable. Death is proscribed for desertion but sadly that maximum punishment isn't used nearly as much as it ought to IMO. DUELING is a punitive article (really).

The only other oddity is this one.

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

At it's worst that's a bullshit article, since it's so broad as to be ridiculous.


*sigh* My Representative (Duncan Hunter WOOWOO!) apparently defended the General's comments by brining up ... the Catholic Church and how parents think their sons and daughters might be well served by it's values (something to that effect) and that Marines overseas for example are fighting for our morals and principles. (which include gays are immoralz) This was on K.O.'s Countdown and he mentioned 2 polls that polled Marines coming back from overseas tours, a majority said they'd be comfortable serving with gays and more than a quarter said they'd known a gay guy in the service even. Honestly didn't see any of that coming and that's the Marines, I suppose the Army might very well be similar.

[Kittie Rose]

Not only does he incorrectly believe that homosexuality is immoral based on no real reasoning, he also doesn't see the difference between his own personal beliefs and subtly trying to force them on others.

Typical conservative, then.

[Uraniun235]

DUELING is a punitive article (really).

That's probably a holdover from earlier days when dueling was still practiced, although it'd be hilarious if that article had had to be used within the last hundred years.

[FSTargetDrone]

consequences & SPC Brungardt, thanks for that info. Good stuff.

This was on K.O.'s Countdown and he mentioned 2 polls that polled Marines coming back from overseas tours, a majority said they'd be comfortable serving with gays and more than a quarter said they'd known a gay guy in the service even. Confused Honestly didn't see any of that coming and that's the Marines, I suppose the Army might very well be similar.

Yeah, I saw that Countdown story too. And here's an excerpt from another story about the polls you mentioned:

John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.

He also cited a new Zogby poll, commissioned by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, of 545 U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three quarters said they were comfortable around gay men and lesbians; 37 percent opposed allowing gays to serve openly; 26 percent said they should be allowed, and 37 percent were unsure or neutral.

Of those who said they were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two-thirds did not believe it hurt morale, according to the poll published in December.

Shalikashvili said he expected fierce debate over gays in the military this year as Congress considers President Bush's call for expanding the size of the Army, which is stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seems like the people under Pace's command are more open about things than he himself is!

I gotta wonder what it does to any gay or lesbian's morale hearing a general saying that they are immoral merely by engaging in homosexual acts.

[Lonestar]

.

(snip both y'all's post)

Interesting story, we were basically told by our RDCs/DIs in oot that the whole "sodomy on a member of the opposite sex" will not, as a practical matter, be prosecuted. That's one of those handy regs that still exist for the purposes of throwing more charges on someone if he/she fucks up big.

Incidently, the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton(Shalilkashvili) has published a few editorials in recent months to the effect of "Man I was wrong to fight gays in the military."


He's right, of course, everyone knows that women are more detrimental to unit cohesion than Gay Fellas(tm).

(I'm having a hard time visualing fights breaking out between gays over a third gay guy, or a gay man getting knocked up in order to skate out of a deployment)

[Big Orange]

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!

Well it's" not news" in the same manner that (as Coyote said) it does not surprise me that homophobia is fairly prevalent in America's armed services.

[Enforcer Talen]

I gotta wonder what it does to any gay or lesbian's morale hearing a general saying that they are immoral merely by engaging in homosexual acts.

I expect thats the last of their worries, when they can lose their career over being found out.

[Turin]

Let's play the word-substitution game:

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 racists than actual Blacks in the military.

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

I imagine folks were saying something similar to the above when the US armed forces became racially integrated as well. From what I've heard of the military (many of my family members, including my brother and sister, have served), plenty of folks come in racist, but they do a pretty decent job of beating that out of you in boot -- or at least enough to hide it. It can be the same way with gays.

Add to this the poll mentioned above about morale apparently not being affected by the presence of gays, and the whole argument against having openly gay soldiers serving vanishes.

[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!

Well it's" not news" in the same manner that (as Coyote said) it does not surprise me that homophobia is fairly prevalent in America's armed services.

Just like it wasn't news all across the South that black people used to get lynched if they found themselves out in town after sunset after the Civil War.

You're a fucking piece of shit, you know that? You want this swept under the rug to fester; I want it cleaned up in the one way that's fair and just. May you unsuccessfully catch a freight train with your face, cheesedick. You certainly deserve it.

[Lonestar]

Just like it wasn't news all across the South that black people used to get lynched if they found themselves out in town after sunset after the Civil War.

You're a fucking piece of shit, you know that? You want this swept under the rug to fester; I want it cleaned up in the one way that's fair and just. May you unsuccessfully catch a freight train with your face, cheesedick. You certainly deserve it.

Pff. What do you care? It isn't like your drugged-addled mind would be allowed in the military even if you were as straight as Wilt Chamberlain!

Besides, the number of folks being discharged for being Gay has dropped like a rock these past few years.

According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001 -- but in the past five years the average has fallen below 730. The data were provided to The Washington Post in response to a request.

So we're heading in that direction anyway.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Just like it wasn't news all across the South that black people used to get lynched if they found themselves out in town after sunset after the Civil War.

You're a fucking piece of shit, you know that? You want this swept under the rug to fester; I want it cleaned up in the one way that's fair and just. May you unsuccessfully catch a freight train with your face, cheesedick. You certainly deserve it.

Pff. What do you care? It isn't like your drugged-addled mind would be allowed in the military even if you were as straight as Wilt Chamberlain!

Does it look like I give a fuck? Unlike you, I have a mentality that sees someone as a human with rights first, potential problem only later when we come to it, political capital to use as bigot-bait never.

Besides, the number of folks being discharged for being Gay has dropped like a rock these past few years. <SNIP>

Well good. All I'm arguing is this negative attention the general bought for himself is completely deserved anyway. America isn't going to stop being fair and just to people just because tiny splintery factions of total idiots want injustice, whether the idiots hold rank or not.

[Medic]

Add to this the poll mentioned above about morale apparently not being affected by the presence of gays, and the whole argument against having openly gay soldiers serving vanishes.

The poll mentioned by... me! So quit quoting me before that like you're just demolished my argument when in fact I pulled back on the strongest point of my own volition.

That being said, well DUH the word substitution works as-is. It's just that for most of this new century gays have still been a hate-able group and thus the cohesion argument might well still have stood. If that's changing then good, it'll still be a fight but not as uphill, it's nearly an even playing ground now.

The only problem I can imagine with that poll is that acceptance of homosexuals is probably highly visibly along age boundaries, so there may be remnant institutionalized biases against gay service members for years. (yes, that is an opinion)

[Lonestar]

Does it look like I give a fuck?

Yeah, otherwise you wouldn't be posting in the thread.

Unlike you, I have a mentality that sees someone as a human with rights first, potential problem only later when we come to it, political capital to use as bigot-bait never.

Everyone is a potential problem. Some more so than others. And we got people pissing and moan about...someone that doesn't make policy.

Well good. All I'm arguing is this negative attention the general bought for himself is completely deserved anyway. America isn't going to stop being fair and just to people just because tiny splintery factions of total idiots want injustice, whether the idiots hold rank or not.

Fine, deride him all you want. But he doesn't make policy, the civilian bosses do. Heck, Secretary Gates said:

During an interview on the Pentagon Channel, Gates declined to give his opinion on the current military policy: "Personal opinion really doesn't have a place here. … What's important is that we have a law, a statute that governs 'don't ask, don't tell.'

People are confusing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as CEO or something. Yeah he has a lot of influence, and he signs off on operations, but his job description is to mediate between the different services, not make policy.

[Lord Zentei]

Does it look like I give a fuck?

Yeah, otherwise you wouldn't be posting in the thread.

Err, he gives a fuck about discrimination against gays in the millitary, not the fact that he would not be allowed to join. Since, the "Does it look like I give a fuck" was in response to this little post of yours:

What do you care? It isn't like your drugged-addled mind would be allowed in the military even if you were as straight as Wilt Chamberlain!

Which is kind of irrelevant to the whole issue.

Unlike you, I have a mentality that sees someone as a human with rights first, potential problem only later when we come to it, political capital to use as bigot-bait never.

Everyone is a potential problem. Some more so than others. And we got people pissing and moan about...someone that doesn't make policy.

Someone who has considerable influence. You think that his comments are not indicadive of the institutional homophobia in the armed forces even though he does not make policy?

[Lonestar]

Err, he gives a fuck about discrimination against gays in the millitary, not the fact that he would not be allowed to join. Since, the "Does it look like I give a fuck" was in response to this little post of yours:

Which is kind of irrelevant to the whole issue.

No, what is a problem is that a jack-hole who's admitted drug habits would get him a Big Chicken Dinner is whining about what is and isn't institutionally moral.

Someone who has considerable influence. You think that his comments are not indicadive of the institutional homophobia in the armed forces even though he does not make policy?

What the fuck do I care about him? I was in the Navy, you think I give two shits about a Marine General?