Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.”     H. L. Mencken

March 13, 2007

Dishonesty and Dishonor

by Chris

Top US General Calls Homosexuality Immoral
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
13 March 2007

The top U.S. military officer has said homosexuality is immoral, sparking renewed controversy about the status of homosexuals in the U.S. military. VOA’s Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, told the Chicago Tribune newspaper the military ban on homosexuals should continue, because homosexuality is immoral. The newspaper posted audio from the interview on its Web site.

PACE: “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

General Pace told the Tribune that to officially allow homosexuals to serve in the military would be an endorsement of immoral activity. He said the military should not endorse any immoral acts, mentioning specifically homosexuality and extra-marital affairs, which are also against military regulations. General Pace endorsed the current policy, under which homosexuals serve by keeping their sexual orientation a secret.

Okay now, first off, I’m saying this as a man who is both Catholic, and a veteran; Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is offensive, insulting to all men and women who wear the uniform, gay or straight, and it should be ended one way or another.

The military is no place for mealy mouthing and careful parsing of statements for political correctness… or rather it shouldn’t be, but all too often it is.

Whatever you think of homosexuality, you can’t deny that DADT is a moral, social, and disciplinary disgrace of epic proportions.

Now, again as both a Catholic and a veteran, the idea that someone should be banned from serving their country because a general believes their private sexual behavior is immoral, is ludicrous. If his morality is coming from his Christianity he should know he is in no position to judge, that’s Gods job.

We ban adultery in the military, not because it is immoral, but because it is dishonorable. It is the betrayal of a sacred oath, and if a man will betray his marriage vows, might he not betray his service oath as well?

There is nothing inherently dishonorable about homosexuality; but we force gay men and women into being dishonorable, ever day that they serve in silence.

Hell, I’m willing to bet MY private sexual behavior would GREATLY disturb Gen. Pace as well; and I’m a happily married man with two kids, who honorably served my country.

The fact of the matter is, there are thousands upon thousands of gay men and women serving honorably in the armed forces today; there always have been and there always will be. To tacitly accept their honorable service, and then insist that they dishonor themselves by being closeted is a shameful stain on OUR honor, as service members, as veterans, and as a nation.

Freedom of conscience is among our highest freedoms, and forced denial of self is an abuse of that freedom.

Hell, I knew for a fact that I was serving with gay service members; and was friends with several serving gays and lesbians who were quite candid about their sexual orientation, with friends only. It didn’t effect their job, and it didn’t make them poor service members; but it very definitely effected their souls.

It made me ashamed to have to accept this policy. IT IS WRONG.

Now, as to whether gays SHOULD be allowed to openly serve, I am of mixed mind on that.

The primary official concern, and logic behind the official ban, is that gays serving with straights will result in inappropriate sexual behavior.

To my mind, so long as we set and enforce appropriate standards of behavior and discipline, and severely punish anyone who does not abide by those standards, be they gay or straight, I don’t care who my buddy wants to have sex with (even if it’s me).

Implicit in the banning of gays, while we allow men and women to serve together; is the assumption that gay men, and lesbian women will be less able to control themselves around other service members they are attracted to than straight service members. I find this implied assertion to be quite offensive; and disrespectful to ALL service members not just gays and lesbians.

The fact of the matter is, the rules say keep it in your pants (or if you don’t for gods sakes don’t let it screw up the job). If we can expect straight folks to do it, we can expect gay folks to do it.

I’m not saying there aren’t issues here. There will always be elements of anti-gay sentiment in the military; especially in the hypermasculine culture that pervades most of the military (and I don’t necessarily think that culture is inappropriate much of the time); but so what, there are idiots currently serving who also hate women, Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Arabs, and every other identity group out there (note the caps).

Then there’s the people who say “What about AIDS and other STDs that homosexuals are at higher risk for? In the barracks environment, in training, and in combat, there is a lot of close contact, potentially with with bodily fluids, as well as transfusions and the like”.

Well, yes that’s true, but the fact is that every service member can be required to have an AIDS test every six months, and probably SHOULD be, straight or gay. As I was getting out I believe they were instituting regular screening for many STDs, and they have been testing for Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and Hepatitis with every physical, for as long as such test have existed.

Hell, you can’t even say that gay men are at a much greater risk here, because soldiers, sailors, and airmen as a class, are about the most promiscuous people on the planet (I know, I was one of them), as well as frequent patrons of prostitutes, who are the highest risk group for sexually transmitted diseases by far.

After over a decade of exclusion, we now allow gay men with clear AIDS tests to give blood in the civvy world (presuming they don’t have other risk factors like a high number of partners etc…); and we require a standard of behavior in or service members higher than society requires for gay men as a whole, so I reject this argument as specious.

All that said, I think this whole thing is one gigantic social mess. Hell, we’ve screwed up the military trying to integrate women, and still haven’t managed to do so successfully for over 60 years of trying (since the inception of the Womens Army Corps nurses serving near the front in WW2).

And I’m not saying women shouldn’t be allowed to serve either. I’m of the opinion that anyone who can meet the standards of a combat soldier should be allowed to serve in combat. That those standards be the same for all genders, sexual preferences, races, creeds or any other thing. Everybody has to pass the same test no matter what, and that test is predicated on what makes a good soldier, not what the average of the lowest performing group can pass (which is how womens PFT standards were developed by the by).

My point is however, that even given the position of women in our society, as the now dominant cultural force (and if you don’t think that’s true, you haven’t watched much network TV or been on a university campus recently – lucky you); we STILL can’t get integrating them into our military forces right. Integrating open homosexuality is a lot more controversial and difficult socially than women.

Then there’s the fact that the service environment engenders a lot of very unguarded and intimate social contact, with communal quarters, showers etc… Some raise the entirely valid point that you wouldn’t force a woman to shower with a man, nor should you force straight men to shower with gay men who might have sexual interest in them

I don’t agree with that point in it’s entirety, but I do see the issue; and I don’t think the solution is separate accommodation for gay and straight (That would be just ridiculous, and nearly impossible to do in a combat zone anyway). Hell, I don’t even think we should have separate accommodation for men and women out in the field. If women want to play with the boys they should shower with the boys… but that’s neither here nor their.

The armed forces are not the place for social experimentation, and forcing such a change in the middle of a war is beyond stupidity.

My thought is that “don’t ask don’t tell” is insulting and shameful to all concerned; that anyone currently serving who is gay should be allowed to come out of the closet should they choose to do so, but we should avoid at all costs treating gays as a protected class etc… etc…

I just don’t know how to do it.

Honestly, I don’t think we can do it right now. I don’t think it’s far off, but I don’t think it’s this year, or next year.

UPDATE:

WASHINGTON — Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed mild regret Tuesday for voicing his belief that homosexual acts are “immoral,” but he stopped short of an apology as gay rights groups and a powerful Republican senator rebuked the general for the comments he made to the Chicago Tribune.

As critics fired rhetorical volleys, Pace issued a statement expressing regret that he had put so much stress on the morality issue when he defended the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military during a Monday interview with the Tribune’s editorial board.

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

Well, although I disagree with him, Ill say I respect the man all the more for saying this, in this way. He didn’t cave to pressure to apologize for his personal views; but he acknowledged that it was entirely inappropriate for him to have expressed his personal views in the context of military policy.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/13/dishonesty-and-dishonor/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

100 Comments

  1. No man wants a gay guy in the same shower looking at him it feel’s very unccomftorable would a girl want a man naked peeking at her in a co ed restroom No!
    that would means all gays have to be in thier special restroom etc same goes if you share a room
    you cant put a gay person to share a room with alot of men amped with testorone if thats the case if you want the army then join a gay army.
    i have nothing about gay men but your not going to dorm men and women in the same room would u ?
    now we do need women because if the world where gay thier would be no man and women period.
    unless anyone knows how to make a baby with the same sex thats my 2 cents take care all

    Comment by walter — March 13, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
  2. Finally, someone has the guts to speak his mind in this insane PC country! I did not want to serve with gays (I flew F-4′s for 14 years with tours over N. Vietnam); would not want to serve with gays. Why force me to accept a lifestyle I do not approve? Why force me to do things I would not want to do.

    I too have rights and in the PC correct country someone is overlooking my rights!

    Comment by Bill — March 13, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
  3. Walter, you’ll note I did mention that specifically as a concern that I think is to at least some extent, valid.

    Thing is, I’m a Heinlein guy at heart. As far as I’m concerned I have no problem with gay straight men and women all using the same facilities. I don’t expect others to feel the same way of course, but I don’t see a problem with it.

    Theres a saying, when you’re in uniform the only color you see is green (or blue in my case); well as far as I’m concerned the only gender you should see is “soldier” (or marine or sailor or airman as it were).

    That would of course require as I said, everyone to pass the same tests, something most women can’t do, and it would subject men to !gasp the horror! being checked out.

    Comment by Chris — March 13, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
  4. The day they allow open homosexuals in the military is the day I take off the uniform. It has nothing to do with personal belief its a matter of what is good for the military to work as a fluid machine. Mission first.

    Will they create other dorms just for homosexuals? What will they do with showers? How about living quarters? What about deployments? Tents? Will their be a “gay man” and “gay women” tent? You cannot put homosexuals in the same tents as heterosexual men and women. You will then get off track from the actual mission at hand and the Officer’s and Senior NCO’s will be spending their time dealing with other issues.

    Comment by Shean — March 13, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
  5. And again, I agree the disciplinary issue is a concern; but no different than the one we face with straight men and women in the same combat theater.

    Comment by Chris — March 13, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
  6. He is right. Homosexuality is hated by G-d. It is a sin. Just like stealing and other acts. No room for this behavior in the army or anywhere. In addition, mixing men and women in the same barracks is not an option. How can you then mix gays in the same barracks. This makes a mockery of America and the Army.

    Comment by Buddy — March 13, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
  7. The writer has some excellent points. The two comments so far…To the first individual, what sort of soldier would you make if your so vain your concerned who is checking you out in the shower? And to the second individual; when did not wanting to be around a certain group become a ‘right’? The military is comprised of its citizens. All of them. By your logic any group that you don’t like shouldn’t be around, damn the consequence because you have rights. Which they told me were no longer mine when I signed up. Much less your ‘rights’ infringing upon the freedom to exist of of others. We don’t make the policy, we are the instruments thereof. The policy of this nation is supposedly freedom yet it somehow doesn’t apply to a certain segment of the population serving to protect it? Dishonorable. In every sense. The general is free to have his opinions, but his personal beliefs be just those.

    Comment by Lansgton — March 13, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
  8. First I am not against homosexuals because I am not sure what is the cause of the problem. I am against is practicing homosexuality. I could go on with my arguments on the sacredness of marriage but this is not the time. an openly gay or lesbian is acting in an immoral way clearly shows a lack of self control that every man (and woman) in combat needs. I am not a soldier myself, but I would be very offended when I read the part of the article saying that the soldiers are the most promiscuous on the planet. I however know many sirvice members and veterans and I don’t believe this to be true

    Comment by Joseph O'Loughlin — March 13, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
  9. I salute General Pace. Homosexuality is IMMORAL. Dont ask Dont tell needs to stay a part of our military. The last thing I would want to hear while lying in my rack onboard the carrier is the sound of two men openly flirting with each other. The quickest way to F%$# up the world’s greatest military is to allow a bunch a gay right activist assholes to control it by trying to bring their way of life to our view. Homosexuality is not natural. In no way can anyone even argue that it is. General Pace need not apologize for his statement. There are many many “REAL MEN” left in the military who will stand behind him.

    Comment by James — March 13, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
  10. As a straight man who has no fear of gay men, or women for that matter, I’d like everyone to take note of the spelling and grammatical errors contained in the homophobic posts. I realize this is a simplistic approach to understanding the realty of the source of simpleton views but it is a good place to start.

    If you are truly straight, you could give a rat’s back end who is “checking you out.” Gay people are in every aspect of our lives. Those who fear being naked in front of gay people of their own sex are afraid of their own reactions and temptations, not eyes.

    Comment by Levi — March 13, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
  11. A person is a MEMBER of the military. It’s WHO they ARE, while on duty, on a military post or in a combat theatre. That person is REQUIRED to adhere to a code of conduct while in those specific locations.
    Straight or gay sex is what a person DOES, when NOT in those locations. I don’t CARE what a person DOES, I only care WHO they ARE. Gays and lesbians have made the mistake of defining “gay” and “lesbian” as “who they are”. Nonsense. It is what they “DO” and nobody should care.

    Comment by Jack — March 13, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
  12. i find some of the comments here disturbing, but the fact of the matter is that they are also funny. I served 14 years in the Marines, including foreign deployments and combat, and, in addition to me, there were gay marines in every outfit that I was in. It is like this in every branch, and ‘fraternization’ between the troops is a regular occurrence. Some of the hottest sex I ever had was in those situations, and it is going on all the time. So, when people say, ‘you can’t have gays in the same tents as straights’ or whatever, it makes me laugh because they already are there. More often than not it boosts unit cohesion, rather than causing the panic that some people claim.

    Comment by lars — March 13, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
  13. 1 last thing,

    dorms/tents/etc for homophobes maybe. the rest of us who don’t fear shadows wont care. They are quite obviously the group with the biggest problem. The ludacris nature of these comments is astounding. I suppose is they are allowed to serve openly, they will all of the sudden appear? Gays are in the military now, so the concept of ‘i don’t want one in my tent’ is quite naive considering there probably is already.

    Not really rocket science…

    Comment by Lansgton — March 13, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
  14. As a gay man I often wondered why I should be forced to explain myself to anyone, let alone to the same people that claim to protect the rights of all Americans. Asking or requiring us to have seperate bathrooms, tents, deployment, etc. brings back a piece of history that I like to believe we have put behind us. However, this is the real world and not everyone has respect for the rights of all. This is a country that was founded on personal and religious freedom and those that choose to deny those rights are doing more harm to it than they are protecting it.

    Comment by Justin — March 13, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
  15. Yaknow, all you folks who say “I’ll never serve with gays”…

    First, you already do.

    Second, just substitute women, blacks, jews… I could go on.

    These same arguments were made against women being full service members, and though there have been (and continue to be) problems, I don’t think the military is worse off for including women.

    Many of these same arguments were made against Blacks when the armed forces were integrated in 1950.

    No, you do not have a right to not serve with the groups of people you don’t like. On your property, in your store, in your house you should be able to be as bigoted as you want, but the government IS NOT allowed to do that.

    Now you’ll also note, I don’t say that we should immediately make “gay ok” in the military. Social experimentation with the military is always a bad idea (referring back to those problems with women for example).

    Hell, I think the forced integration in 1950 was a bad idea. It caused MASSIVE morale problems. As a practical matter, I say we cant do this right now; but at some point I’m sure we will, because it is the right thing to do.

    Comment by Chris — March 13, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
  16. I respect the General for speaking the truth on a hard issue that will never be faced with open eyes. Far too many people are will to look the other way with whats wrong in this country and homosexuality, I believe was not part of God’s plan!

    Comment by Jerry — March 13, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
  17. Oh and another thing, even if you hate homosexuality, how can you possibly support “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

    It’s offensive to both those who want gays out, and those who want them in. It’s entirely disingenuous and I believe dishonorable. We should not on the one hand say “we value your service”, and on the toher say “you can never admit that you are gay, or we will stop valuing your service and kick you out”.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Comment by Chris — March 13, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
  18. The difference between gays and blacks is that blacks are a race equal to every other race, there is NOTHING immoral about those of us who are. the problem with being gay(actively) is that it is immoral.

    Comment by Joseph — March 13, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
  19. I’m sorry… I serve in the Army for 4 years… I’m straight… but I’ve never met so many gay people in my life. I’m not saying by any means that most people in the Army are gay. But, I never met so many in one place at one time before.

    I’m sorry to say it.. but if you are in uniform, you are serving with gay people right now.

    I personally rather know that someone is gay so that I can make it clear that I’m straight, than not know that they are gay and maybe end up drinking and passing out at their home, or maybe sending the wrong signals.

    Also, homosexuals are not degenerate people. Their sexual impulses are no different than heterosexual people. So, if a normal gay guy has a crush on you, he will not try to rape you, just like you wouldn’t rape a girl that you have a crush on.

    I would be very offended if some guy tried to make a move on me while I’m in the shower, and I guess that most gay people know better than to do that.

    There is no need to fear homosexuals, and it is unreasonable to keep them segregated as second class citizens.

    I’m sure a lot of soldiers did not want to share the bathroom and the collective showers with black people. I’m sure other solders stated that they would take off their uniform the day that blacks were accepted in the armed forces.

    Well, I’m glad that I served with some gay people that knew how to be really good soldiers and friends.

    Granted, most of my close gay friends were lesbians… but I treated gay guys with dignity and respect… no differently than other people.

    Comment by Andres — March 13, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
  20. Shean: what you’re saying makes absolutely no sense at all. Gays are already serving in the military right now, so gay men are already sleeping in tents with straight men, showering with them, too. If you are really in the military, you’ve doubtless been with gay men whether you realized it or not.

    There problems which have got you all worked up are your own – not gay men’s. Grow up.

    Comment by Robert — March 13, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
  21. “Homosexuality is not natural. In no way can anyone even argue that it is.”

    James, this is a statement of profound ignorance. Homosexuality occurs *everywhere* in nature. Try reading up on the subject before you wade into something you clearly know nothing about. “In no way can anyone even argue” – brother. There are whole *books* written on the subject. Go read a few.

    Comment by Robert — March 13, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
  22. According to Wikipedia, of the 25 NATO members, over 20 allow gays to openly serve in their armed forces. This includes Israel, who are some of the baddest mo-fos around.

    I really think that we’ve reached a point in our progression as a country that this should cease to be a problem. Some of the polls of servicemen seem to suggest that they’re pretty okay with it, too.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 13, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
  23. I salute you, General Pace. Standing up for what is right.

    You may ridicule us Christians, but if God is with us, who can be against us?

    Comment by Joe — March 13, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
  24. You bad mouth the general for saying what he thinks? How very sad for you.

    So why do you bother to have a web site?
    You go crazy with anyone to disagrees with the trash you publish.

    Grow up.

    Comment by John — March 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
  25. Don’t you find it strange that the military seems to be able to enforce discipline, and unit cohesion among soldiers who are far from home, in a foreign land, paid crappy wages, fed crappy food, shot at, bonbed, told to walk into deadly situations on a regular basis, taught how to kill other people, and see their friends maimed and killed — but somehow a gay in the next bunk is bad for morale?

    I wonder how we can win our Global War on Terror as long as our generals are so afraid of the Global Peril of Two Guys Who Love Each Other?

    Bravo to Chris. A soldier is a soldier, black or white, man or woman, gay or straight.

    Comment by Another Chris — March 13, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
  26. I have walked the misguided path of tolerance. The homosexual community preaches tolerance and acceptance until it is counterproductive to their own agenda. The homosexual community has pushed too far. They now see fit to impose their views on everyone from school children to the military. If you disagree with their lifestyle you are immediately labled a bigot or a homophobe. By definition, most homosexuals I have encountered are bigots. They are intolerantly devoted to their opinion, and are fanatically enthusiastic about their right to impose it upon others.
    I feel the time has come to forget about political correctness and draw a line in the sand.
    I personally do not care what two people do to each other in a bedroom as long as I am not an unwilling participant. I do not want to be forced to defer under fear of litigation as this seems to be the tool of choice among the proponents of this issue.
    The homosexual genome will dissapear in the evolutionary scale over the next few generations. (I would guess most homosexuals to be of a creationary belief system if not for this reason only.) If you cannot reproduce, your line will die with you. All this fuss over a dying race of individuals.
    Keep your beliefs to yourself. I will do the same.
    In the end, I think you can figure out who wins.

    Comment by Peter — March 13, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
  27. People who claim that “God” does not want gays, are just as terrible as the terrorist of 9-11.

    People with unreasonable beliefs commit unreasonable acts.

    Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion…
    Just because you believe in the bible doesn’t mean that everybody else has to believe in it.

    I mean, there are alternative believes, alternative views, and alternative live styles.

    I’m sure that a lot of religious fanatics would love to outlaw homosexuality, certain science books, non-Christian religions, and philosophy.

    Well, I just glad that we are not in the middle ages where religious fanatics killed anyone that opposed their narrow views.

    Comment by Andres — March 13, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
  28. Peter, I actually agree with you in many ways there. Many gays are agenda driven bigots, and the label of homophobe is often absurd and insulting.

    Actually, I’m going to re-post something here I psoted at my personal blog about two years ago called “homophobia is offensive”. It wasn’t about people who hate gays, it was about how gays use the word as a club against anyone who disagrees with them or disapproves of them.

    Comment by Chris — March 13, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
  29. Chris, your article is brilliant and well thought out. I totally agree with your outlook on this matter. Thank you for sharing your insight on a very controversial issue.

    Comment by Muriel — March 14, 2007 @ 12:01 am
  30. Chris:

    Your statements indicate that you don’t understand the accountability God has placed on mankind to honor his laws above all others. Tell me, is it immoral to commit murder or is it a bad idea simply because it is against the law of the land? Your statement is flawed because, to the contrary, the Chairman is in a position to judge, in fact, because of his high position he must; God indeed holds people accountable for what they do with what they know, and the chairman has great responsibility and accountability because of his authority. That’s something that our congressmen and senators would do well to understand. To suggest that to we aren’t to say something is right or wrong morally is silly too. Your statement, “that’s God’s job,” is interesting because He has already said it’s immoral, what else do you want him to say to get the idea across? I know this whole “morality is relative” attitude appeals to the secular, new age culture, which rejects the moral absolutes of the Christian faith, where truth is subjective, based on personal beliefs. Is this your idea of right and wrong? Where everyone gets to pick and chose whatever suits the itinerary this week? No wonder this country is in the condition its in.

    Comment by Rex — March 14, 2007 @ 12:05 am
  31. My. So many of you who oppose gay folk within your army seem to bring up religious arguments, which seems to make your entire point moot in my eyes.

    Or do you want to tell the atheists and agnostics, or those who practice a different religion than yours, that they cannot serve as well?

    Comment by Erin — March 14, 2007 @ 12:07 am
  32. I am by no means a moral relativst, in fact I’ve railed against the subject extensively. I just do not accept that God is that much of an asshole that he would make 10% of the population gay, and automatically damn them to hell.

    The bible also says we should stone children who disobey their parents, and women who weave cloth of two different kinds of threads. Do you really think we should do that too?

    The bible is a human document, corrupted by human hands, and human minds.

    If you really believe that god tells you to hate gays, fine, but that’s not my god; you go believe what you want to believe.

    If you think you have the right to make the government enforce your belief on everyone else, well now we’ve got a REAL problem. See we have a constitution, and nowhere in it does it say that gays are any less people than anyone else. It also doesnt say that we can “force people to do gods will”, in fact it specifically prohibits such a thing.. hell this is one of the few examples where a reference to the establishment provision actually means what someone is arguing about… a miracle

    Your religious beliefs cannot be explicitly supported or enforced by our government. If somebody tried that, it’s time to start getting out the pitchforks and torches.

    AND I’M A FRIKKEN CATHOLIC FER CHRISSAKES.

    Of course now we’ll get some nutbag radical evagelical in here who’ll be saying that catholics aren’t Christians..

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 12:13 am
  33. Lansgton obviously has no idea what military life or military reality is like, that’s for sure. The reality is that of course there are going to be gays that serve. But DADT is THE BEST way to keep it a non-subject. All of you people against DADT say that people should have the right to be gay openly.. well, maybe in the civilian world, that’s OK because that’s life .. but in the military, that can’t be something to waste your time on… if gays are open about it, then everyone around them, including themselves are going to have to waste time “dealing” with it. If they just shut up about it, and ficus on what their jobs as soldiers are, then they wouldn’t have time to whine about how they should be able to shout their gayness from the roof tops. Its not an issue that’s important, so drop it. If the military needs to make it a law that heterosexuals shouldn’t talk about their being strait either, then so be it .. it’s better than having to waste valuable time dealing with the alternative.

    Comment by Forys — March 14, 2007 @ 12:14 am
  34. James, how did you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not natural? Homosexual behavior is found in most mammal species. That sure sounds to me like it’s natural.

    Joseph, if you’re going to say that openly gays or lesbians show a lack of discipline, then so do openly heterosexual men and women.

    Perhaps the worst offense against G-d is openly hating His other children. We are all made in His image, baseless hatred of others is acting against Him. I suspect amny of the posters here will be in for quite the shock when their time comes.

    Comment by Diane — March 14, 2007 @ 12:19 am
  35. Forys, either we need to let them serve openly, or not at all. Anything else is dishonorable hipocrisy.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 12:20 am
  36. Great article.. The military trains men and women (gay and straight) to fight and do as they are told with out regard for their own personal feelings.. You do the job and you do it to protect your country. It’s not a club. You don’t get to choose who is in it. You fight along with every other soldier that has completed the training. If someone is willing to serve in the military, they should.

    As others have said, it wasn’t too long ago that blacks were not allowed in the same units as whites. Pretty much all the same arguments……

    Comment by Steve — March 14, 2007 @ 12:22 am
  37. Chris,

    God never says anywhere to hate the gays nor are they damned to hell. But the act of homosexuality is a SIN just like any other sin .. and just like some naturally struggle with certain sins more than other, so do homosexuals need to deal with their sin of the act of homosexuality. If you assume that God solely, and not their environment, has created ALL gays that way, then that’s your assumption… but it doesn’t take away from the fact that he loves us all and hates the sin. Why is that so hard for you all to understand.. it’s pretty simple, really. Your bleak references to stoning disobedient children and sewing wives are most likely old-testament references .. a time before Jesus Christ. And, as I’m sure you know, could have very little then to do with Christianity in that Christianity is to be Christ-like .. to follow the teachings of the Christ.

    But that;s all besides the point … the military is the last place on earth that should be so concerned with individual rights. When you sign up for military service, you are signing over many of your rights in service of your country for that period of time… do what your told and quit whining that no one wants to hear about you being gay .. at least not for your short 6-8year tour of duty. boo hoo.

    Comment by Forys — March 14, 2007 @ 12:23 am
  38. Honestly Steve, I hate that argument; because it elevates the “gay rights” issue to a far higher moral status than it deserves.

    People are people, and they all have the same rights. They don’t come from the government, or even from God, they come from the fact that we are all sentient beings.

    Gays, Blacks, Women; they don’t need special protection, they jsut need to make sure they don’t get special punishment.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 12:24 am
  39. I would like to read the blog. Thanks

    Comment by Peter — March 14, 2007 @ 12:26 am
  40. Gays…What are they? A filthy, disgusting, self serving group that have permeated our children’s schools, brought us AIDS, (yes, sex with a Green Monkey does qualify as one of the deviate forms of intercourse practiced by gays) cost us billions of dollars in health care, etc. They indoctrinate our young thru Hollywood gay directors and actors, film themes, etc. Now they want to adopt children, play Boy Scout, and be protected from employers who recognize that a homosexual has already exhibited extremely poor judgement. Why should any employer (the Armed Forces included) be forced to hire someone who exhibits such poor decision making as gays exhibit. Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities should be outraged that the gays compare their actions and their plight to that of Blacks, etc.
    I have many male friends, I love many of those male friends. We dine together, ski, laugh, hug, cry and share intimate stories. Make no mistake, there is no ‘Homosexual life style’, ‘Gay life style’, etc. What we have is men and woman who simply have a filthy, disgusting habit that they desperately want to have the rest of the world tolerate. What’s next, ‘The Child Molesting Bill of Rights’? It’s only fair, child molesters need love too.

    Comment by mark e — March 14, 2007 @ 12:26 am
  41. I as many have the same mixed feelings about this subject. I lost a very dear friend with whom I served, to a disease worsened by aids. I had no idea he was gay. I do however believe just as he did, that there is no need for accommodating behaviors that most people in society and the military consider unacceptable. But there are a great many behaviors that are also considered unacceptable. Until the SMLD put a number on the Gays and Lesbians serving in the military, and I don’t think most did, had no idea how many are serving. Why the remaining number of those serving should be forced to accept their life choice. My friend did not ask that of me. This number is minute compared to the rest of those serving in the military. And this is also the same for those who would have us accept and condone the same behavior in our society. Demanding respect for their choice, demanding legislation to force their choice on the rest of our society, demanding the military accept them with open arms. I believe don’t ask don’t tell is the best they should expect and probably the most fair and equitable treatment in the military society. Generals are also entitled to their opinions. That is within the framework of why we serve, to protect and defend liberties and freedoms.
    Is it fair and equitable that those of us who disagree with their lifestyle must apologize when opinion is voiced openly? Political or party fear that votes may be lost because this group is not being catered to? I do not condone singling out Gays and Lesbians, making them victims of hate crimes or prejudicial treatment either. That is immoral behavior also. But I believe mutual respect of their choices in life, and how they choose to live it and with whom; belong to them as American citizens and human beings. But don’t rewrite the book to accommodate the belief. There are 299 million others of us who may not agree with them.

    Comment by Eric — March 14, 2007 @ 12:29 am
  42. Mark, the difference is that children and animals can’t consent, adults can.

    If someone elses behavior offends you, so what; unless they are doing something that is abusing your personal rights, or illegal, you don’t have the right to do anything about it.

    If you think homosexuality is wrong or immoral, so what; your morals matter not a whit to anyone else; and you have no right to enforce them on others.

    What two, or three, or twenty three consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their home is not for you to judge, and it’s not for you to legislate against.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 12:30 am
  43. Chris, why should they even take the risk ? I mean, when it’s proven for so many years to be successful in the the moral and effectiveness of soldiers to keep that part of their lives out of your military service, why should they risk disintegrating that?… No one is saying gays can’t serve their country (so, against what Steve had said, it’s NOTHING like the blacks who weren’t allowed to fight so many many many years ago .. not at all.) .. they are just saying that no one wants to hear about how different and proud they are about it … yell all you want about how proud you are to be a soldier however.. that’s perfectly OK because that’s what they all are .. and that’s the common ground they will all fight and maybe die under .. not weather they are straight of homo. There’s nothing hypocritical about it. I guess it boils down to this: some of you think homosexuality id normal and some do not. those that do, see nothing wrong because it’s just the same as being any other sexual preference. however, the rest of us that think homosexuality is abnormal, there are only two choices. either give them a chance to blend in with the rest of normal military personnel by not allowing their being gay to be a factor, or they are banned altogether from serving as a failure to pass their physical due to their disorder. I think that best choice is to just keep their gayness a non-issue and lets just keep on serving our country.

    Comment by Forys — March 14, 2007 @ 12:36 am
  44. I have a different understanding of gays than most I guess. I have a sister and brother that are, and I love them very much. Guy people can’t decide who they are attracted too, anymore than I can decide I’m attracted to brunette women; I just am; it’s not something I control. However, I can control whom I allow myself to sleep with, and this is the important thing people don’t get. It’s not who or what you’re attracted too; it’s how you manage the attraction that’s important.

    I’m not against gays or anybody else. We’re all sinners. But to suggest that anything is acceptable and should be welcomed is flawed reasoning. By the way, I don’t believe God makes people do the things they do, He allows us the choice.

    Comment by Rex — March 14, 2007 @ 12:39 am
  45. Mark e .. yep, the group that want that is called NAMBLA .. they already exist … & its disgusting and appalling to say the least.

    Comment by Forys — March 14, 2007 @ 12:39 am
  46. Like Chris said, you already serve with gays so I can see how this changes anything. And if you want to talk “sin” look at some of the recent events in Iraq. I feel sorry for the troops overseas, who like most others have been sold a lie…but don’t use words like “sin” and “immoral” when talking about gays. It’s offensive, and more so given the “immoral” things troops do under so called military leadership

    Comment by Jason — March 14, 2007 @ 12:39 am
  47. I’m with Rex on that one… it’s called responsibility. Doing the right thing isn’t easy, but that’s besides the point. We all have choices and should be expected to make the best decisions possible while we are on this earth… for the betterment of all, collectively.

    Comment by Forys — March 14, 2007 @ 12:44 am
  48. Interesting post.

    A couple thoughts for your more inflexible readers:

    1) Why are you worried about the shower and the barracks? The concern of the military, as some of you have pointed out, is the mission, the battle, the war you find yourselves in.
    Imagine: the enemy is about to blast you, you’re out of bullets, and the gay guy either has the drop on the enemy or will take a bullet for you.
    You still want him off the battlefield?

    2) You want the gays out of the military. That means no gays will die in battle — only straight people. How does deliberately reducing the number of patriotic heterosexuals serve your agenda?

    Either way, your discomfort off the battlefield and the claims of immorality don’t serve your interest.

    To actually win this argument, you have to want to die for the cause of preventing homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces.

    And when you’re dead, what you wanted doesn’t really matter any more. Life belongs to the living.

    Comment by Pragmatist — March 14, 2007 @ 12:48 am
  49. Forys, I can’t stand the “out and proud” bullshit, and I absolutely cannot abide people who make their sexuality their entire life, and what they’re all about. God I REALLY cant stand people who make their gayness everything and everybodies business. I don’t make a big deal about being straight, white, Irish etc… I dont’ see why gays should make a big deal out of being gay.

    …I also don’t see why YOU should care about them being gay, or anyone else for that matter.

    The point is, being openly gay isn’t going to change who these people are. If they were good servicemen before, they’d be good servicemen now; without the stain of having to deny who they are every day they serve.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 12:49 am
  50. am i really reading this close minded absurdity? Who are any of us to judge others? Being gay is Immoral? What about killing other people? What about barging into other countries and demanding they do things “our” way? how about that for immoral. For you people who are out there judging and hating gay people, who do you think you are? I pray for you people because god knows you need love and compassion in your life.

    Comment by kelly — March 14, 2007 @ 12:50 am
  51. Jason,

    so you are saying that we should then just throw the baby out with the bathwater? No one on here has said a word about what a sparkling moral compass our current military has been in every situation of which they are involved around the world … but that has nothing to do with what’s right and wrong on the topic in THIS discussion. If you want to debate the judgement of a few soldiers in Iraq over the past couple years, then save it for a different post. Besides, your example just goes to show that there are plenty of other situations in which we need help keep our soldiers morally & ethically guided while they are having to deal with the deplorable conditions of Iraq daily, not continue to strip those guidelines away.

    Comment by Forys — March 14, 2007 @ 12:51 am
  52. Yes, thank you. Honestly, I’m going to start deleting comments that get into the politics of Iraq. It’s completely irrelevant to this topic.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 12:54 am
  53. Kelly, that might be considered unethical, but not immoral. Immoral would be to let bad things go unpunished because we decide to question our own “values” and consider the feelings of those who are wrong. To assume that there is moral relativism is to assume that you are always wrong and that the other person could always be right. But if you don’t stand firm to something.. anything, then you’ll fall victim to everything you are up against.

    Please understand … we didn’t barge into Iraq for no reason just to push our beliefs on them … if you think that, then you watch WAY too much Biased American liberal media. There’s way more here than meets the eye, and OIL has very little to do with it… I’m sorry to burst your bubble.

    Comment by Forys — March 14, 2007 @ 12:56 am
  54. Yaknow, reading a lot of these comments, it’s clear that most of the more strident commenters didn’t even read the post. They certainly aren’t paying attention to, or even or really caring at all what it’s about.

    funny that.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 12:57 am
  55. Chris,
    thanks for the discussion .. its been fun .. I think that being able to debate like this with so many different folks in “forums” like these is one of the many great results of our first amendment rights & one that I can enjoy regularly. Thanks for keeping it alive my brotha! (feel free to delete this asap, since it’s not about the topic at all haha)

    Comment by Forys — March 14, 2007 @ 1:00 am
  56. Well said my heterosexual friend!
    As a heterosexual male from New Zealand, many miles from the USA and its military, I suggest all homosexual individuals in your defence force take exception to this decree (because while it remains the comments of a general, it underlies a thought pattern inherent in the service) and resign on mass. Only then will the high command realise the input of these so-called dishonourable people. Just as black soldiers fought and were still denied basic rights back in the 60′s, so too do homosexuals serving in the armed forces, closeting their sexuality, allow the ‘system’ to dictate their roles in society.
    Declare your sexuality proudly and resign. Let Uncle Sam fight without your valuable input. If a dishonourable discharge is all you are given, accept it and let history be your judge.
    There are many companies and individuals ready to accept your personal choice. The military had better get with the times and get the hell out of our bedrooms!

    Comment by Max Gain — March 14, 2007 @ 1:05 am
  57. Whether or not there are already gays in the military and what your views are on that, the bigger point is that Gen. Pace has the same freedom of speech that anyone does. He expressed a view that homosexuality is immoral according to his belief system – and anyone has the right to disagree according to their religious, sexual, etc, beliefs. This remark shouldn’t even be newsworthy, and it’s disgusting that someone can’t disagree with homosexuals without being called homophobic or hateful.

    And on the topic of him making policy recommendations; as a General, I think he’s earned the right to express his views on the workability and effectiveness of military management. If in his professional opinion, homosexual behavior has undesirable effects, he’s been around a lot longer than any poster here, military or not. His opinion deserves more than a quick condemnation. It shouldn’t be a gut reaction to get angry when anyone says anything against homosexuals – that’s thoughtless and irresponsible.

    Comment by Lorri — March 14, 2007 @ 1:06 am
  58. As a gay that has served in the British Military for 14 years the last 7 openly I have read your views with interest.
    I still find it hard to believe that the nation that porports to be a respector of personal rights is hung up on this one.
    Point of fact when i’m in the shower i’m showering not oggling who is stood next to me (i tend to do my oggling in the bar) When i’m in my bunk nine times out of ten i’m sleeping the other time i’m reading letters from home or reading.
    When i’m on duty my personal life is left at the gate.
    And for the gentleman that said he was a serving member of your armed forces and wouldnt’ serve with gays, mate next time our bleeding on the battlefield let me know your the one who doesn’t want to serve with me and i won’t bother risking my life for yours. After all in your book your off to heaven and i’m off to hell and personally i’d rather avoid that place for a while longer.

    Comment by kazza — March 14, 2007 @ 1:07 am
  59. To everyone who thinks I have assaulted or insulted general pace, or am supporting forciing the military to completley integrate homosexuals right now; obviosuly you havent’ read or understood a damn thing here.

    Once again, and if you’d read the post you’d see; I don’t have a problem with General Pace having an opinion. I’m not down on the man. I think he’s wrong, but hey, that’s OK.

    I don’t much care for the way he expressed that opinion, but that’s OK too. He’s almost certainly going to get his PeePee whacked for it tomorrow, which I don’t much care for, because you should at least be able to express your opinion honestly.

    I also agree that the whole thing about people lashing out and using words like homophobia against those who don’t like homosexuality is stupid.

    What I have a problem with is “don’t ask, don’t tell”; which, again, if you’d read the piece, or many of the comments, you would understand.

    I specifically state that we shouldn’t force the military to accept gays right now; and that social experimentation with the military is stupid.

    You can even believe homosexuality is wrong, immoral, cursed by God, whatever it doesn’t matter; you don’t have the right to use the government to force your morals on anyone else; even if you’re the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 1:12 am
  60. Oh and another thing: for those of you who think General Pace had every right to say that homosexuality was immoral; not in the context in which he said it.

    He was speaking in his official capacity a the highest serving officer in the armed forces, about his support for the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.

    When a commander is referencing subjects relevant to his command, there are certain guidelines, protocols, and forms that are observed. One does NOT make moral judgements on peoples private behaviors from the command chair.

    Had he said “homosexuality is a problem for morale and discipline”, that would have been entirely appropriate (whether you believe it to be true or not); Instead, he said homosexuality is immoral. This was a personal pronouncement made by a commander in his official capacity, and as such was inappropriate.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 1:28 am
  61. I’m a Christian. I also served 7 years in the Army when DADT began. I was as confused then as I am now on the need for political correctness in our military. Perhaps it is so because our military is the enforcement representative of our very political beliefs.

    However, I am left deeply sad over my fellow Christians and their viewpoints reciprocated in words or language that can so easily push others to turn away from the love of Jesus. He came to embrace and redeem. His teaching was not of hate or fear of segregation, but of love: To pray for those who walk in bondage of sin. For we are all sinners, you and I alike. We all suffer immorality. Mine may not be the immorality of homosexuality, but it matters little the nature of my sin. Indeed what matters is that I personally acknowledge my sinful nature and trust that God will forgive me for it through His Son, Jesus.

    If a man suffers the immorality of lust, he is welcome both in church on Sunday as well as in our military. We will reach out to him, pray for him and offer him counseling. If immoral language is his sin, he is still welcome to serve as well as attend Church. Alcohol problems? Same. Marital infidelity? Come on in. The list goes on, until you reach homosexuality and suddenly, it becomes “us –vs- them” in how we respond or reach out.

    Jesus came and walked amongst the lame, the diseased… the prostitute and the tax collector. I am sad to think that were He to return today, what He would think of those of us who claim to follow Him and our words that clearly do not win the souls of fellow sinners. We further isolate those whom we, as Christians, are called to lead to Christ.

    When we collectively lose the hegemony, break down stereotypes, dismantle and destroy the “us -vs- them” mentality (which fuels most all the hate in this world) and embrace ourselves as one race, the human race… then perhaps we will begin to live more in His ways of teaching.

    The homosexual community should also walk away from the “us –vs- them” mentality as well. Tolerance is the buzz word from their ranks, yet there is little tolerance to spare to those who view homosexual behavior to be unnatural, immoral and sinful due to our religious beliefs.

    All sides in this controversial issue seem to have lost civility and respect. Christians become labeled, “The Religious Right”. Homosexuals become, “The Gay Agenda”. Labeling only dehumanizes those involved, which allows individuals to more easily attack their fellow man.

    All in all, I stand alone in my beliefs that those whom collectively we (Christians) appear to condemn for their behavior are indeed the very once whom we are called to reach out and embrace. To suggest such a thing inside my Baptist church would have me cast out, yet I sincerely believe that this is precisely what Jesus would have me to do.

    Sin and immorality are free will choices. Pray for those who are lost. Love the sinner. Pray for them. Pray for our soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors. Pray for our leaders and our citizens. May God continue to bless America.

    Comment by Chip — March 14, 2007 @ 1:35 am
  62. Very well said Chip, and I thank you for setting an example as a thoughtful Christian.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 1:38 am
  63. GEN Pace has the right to his views. We expect our leaders – especially our military leaders – to be men of strong values and to exercise them within the limits of their command. And for military men in this age those tend to be conservative values. This is why they are not accepted in the military in the first place. Now he should not be endorsing them in uniform in such a way that hints the Dept of Defense wholly endorses them. That’s illegal and he knows it. I know this is off topic but what ticks me off is there are so many that think the military should accept homosexuality who’ve never served, despise the military, and would never let their precious, privledged sons or daughters serve. If these type of people would get off their high horse and serve, homosexuality in the military would fall into a “so what?” category like it has in so many other sectors of society.

    Comment by Eric Lehmann — March 14, 2007 @ 1:42 am
  64. I also wish to add: The lustful man will struggle with lust his whole life. The alcoholic; The immoral of speech; The unfaithful wife or husband.. ect ect. We –all- will struggle with sin throughout the duration of our lives. Why is it that homosexual sin is treated so repugnantly from Christians? All sin, according to what I understand (from the Bible) is viewed with the same contempt by God. All sin.

    So then, the man who struggles a lifetime with (for example) alcoholism could go to church every Sunday, after drinking every Saturday night and yet collectively we feel that this man will find his way into heaven even though he lacks the ability to totally turn away from his sin.

    For some, their lives are completely transformed. For others, it will be a life long struggle. Some might overcome. Some may face a life of bitter disappointment. We are all different. One of our differences is in our own personal honesty. Nowhere more profound in this difference have I found this to be true than inside organized Christianity.

    However, the intention of the original post and commentary was not of a religious nature or discussion, therefore I wish to apologize for “hijacking” this forum.

    Please return the discussion to the original context. Thank you.

    Comment by Chip — March 14, 2007 @ 1:52 am
  65. Unfortunately Chip, almost the entirety of this thread has been a religious discussion.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 1:54 am
  66. Indeed.

    Perhaps therein we find the true nature of the divide.
    There are those whom, due to our religious beliefs, observe homosexuality to be a sin or immoral. Then, there are those whom do not subscribe to the same religious beliefs, nor agree with them and take offense to the terminology used to classify the homosexual lifestyle.

    Both of these types are protected under the very fabric of freedom in our country. Each in his own kind wishing to serve and protect those very freedoms by service in the armed forces.

    Ironic, that the very conduit to which the honorable desire to serve and defend those very freedoms becomes the battleground for which their very existence as a freedom is challenged.

    It is why I am confused… and sad.

    Comment by Chip — March 14, 2007 @ 2:01 am
  67. My comment Chris was aimed at highlighting the definion of the word “Immoral”. In my opinion using that word to define gay is a misuse of the word. As you correctly stated he can believe it’s immoral, but by defenition it can’t be a statement of fact. I did not intend on dragging in any political issues other than offer a very apt example of how the word ought to be used.

    Thanks though….it makes very intresting reading.

    Comment by Jason — March 14, 2007 @ 3:09 am
  68. now this is a bit rich coming from a catholic, ‘thou shalt not kill’ and a military commander who has presided over torture and abuse by his troops. mealy mouth hypocricy. i grew up in the Church of England and could never quite make the connection or understand the disconnect of those who ‘preached and ‘espoused’ one thing in the name of religion and acted differently outside in the real world, all in the name of expediency. When Iraq is won or lost or we simply say “enough” the current administration and all the generals will be liable for prosecution, ‘crimes against humanity’ and to dis gays, or anyone for that manner is not treating your neighbour as you would wish to be treated. amen.

    Comment by Richard Clark — March 14, 2007 @ 3:25 am
  69. Here is a General who feels like the majority of reasonable people contrary to your desire for a utopia social experiment, now its a crime to say what the offical policy of our nations mlitary is and as a human. When will you aplogize to him for being non inclusive of his belliefs and now the liberal media is a host to your social experiment in its headlines, Pace refuses to apoligize. I have a problem with the character patterns of gays which i witness everyday in my progressive city of Seattle. They are non parallel with the military and the business it conducts for our nation, we don’t make sandwiches for a living. Who cares your a vet, congrats no one cares. See you in Iraq!!!!

    Comment by zen moda — March 14, 2007 @ 3:27 am
  70. Thus proving my point about those who don’t actually read either the post or the comments.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 3:34 am
  71. What the homophobic lobby in this blog don’t seem to realize is that the open integration of gay and straight soldiers has already happened in most of the militaries of the western world. There have not been any of the calamities that the reactive fear-mongers on this blog would have us believe. If they would take a look past their unreasoning and fatuous biases and past their national border (the wheel has already been invented)they would realize that this ‘issue’ is nothing compared to the real problems of the USA and the world. Get over yourselves!

    Comment by Gerry — March 14, 2007 @ 10:22 am
  72. Gerry,

    I think I speak for all the contributors when I say that the sentiments expressed by the majority of the people who have commented on this post do not represent in any way this blog.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 14, 2007 @ 10:29 am
  73. Ok, one last comment.. I promise.

    It occurred to me that, although everyone has an opinion on the DADT policy of the military, not everyone seems to have any factual information.

    Per wikipedia: [url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice/url

    “On June 30, 1775, the Second Continental Congress established 69 Articles of War to govern the conduct of the Continental Army. On April 10, 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War until May 31, 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect.
    The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951. The word “Uniform” in the Code’s title refers to the congressional intent to make military justice uniform or consistent among the armed services.”

    Being ratified in 1951, the UCMJ is arguably a highly conservative in its nature and construction.
    Article 125 of the UCMJ is the rule of law that effects homosexual conduct of a service member. From the UCMJ:
    “Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.”

    Being that homosexuals by their very own admission and definition consist of same sex individuals engaged in sexual relations, one cannot escape the rule of law under the UCMJ, which defines sodomy as a specific article of offense.
    It is my belief that the very definition of the word ‘sodomy’, is itself rooted in Christian fundamentalism and belief.
    Again, from wikipedia:
    “Sodomy is a term of biblical origin used to characterize certain sexual acts that have been attributed to citizens of ancient Sodom. It includes all sexual acts except for coital sex between a male and female not closely related by blood. Therefore the range includes everything from oral sex to masturbation to paraphilia. It is sometimes used to describe human-animal sexual intercourse (also known as bestiality, zoophilia); this is the primary meaning of the cognate German language word Sodomie. Sodomy laws forbidding certain types of sex acts have been instituted in many cultures.”

    By definition then, all sodomy is against the UCMJ and therefore subject to the same proceedings [Article 15, Chapter, or courts martial].
    For example, receiving oral sex between a male soldier and a female soldier, either married or not, would be enough to constitute a violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ.
    The key words found within the article to focus in on are “unnatural carnal copulation”. At the time of the ratification of the UCMJ in the 1950’s, homosexuality was not the open social debate as it clearly is today. Our culture is redefining the very nature of what is to be considered “natural” and “unnatural”.
    However, I’d lastly like to point out that Article 125 of the UCMJ was apparently overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Supreme Court decision. To sum up the landmark ruling, the Supreme Court found in favor of protection under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process. Lawrence v. Texas, as I understand it, has struck down any sodomy laws. Therefore, following this pattern of logic, Article 125 of the UCMJ is thereby Unconstitutional. Any debate or argument thereafter becomes a moot point.
    What remains is a failed Presidential policy that no longer holds to scrutiny under the rule of law, and must therefore be likewise struck.
    The General perhaps is also misinformed on the facts. I would wager that he has been strictly advised by now. If not, someone should forward him a link to this discussion.

    Comment by Chip — March 14, 2007 @ 11:05 am
  74. Chip,

    Lawrence v. Texas would not necessarily apply to the UCMJ.

    It is recognized that Military, and Admiralty law, are exceptional cases, and must often be treated differently. The Supreme court would have to specifically rule that the standard applied in Lawrence, also applied to the military.

    There are numerous cases of first, fourth, and fifth amendment issues (among other constitutional issues)raised by service members every year; which are summarily dismissed from consideration, because military law has special standing.

    When one enlists in, or accepts a warrant or commission in the armed forces; one gives up ones CIVIL rights and agrees to be governed under the laws set forth by congress in the uniform code of military justice. You do not give up your constitutional rights, but you are governed under different rules of jurisprudence, evidence, and precedent.

    The difference between a civilian and not, is that civilians have civil rights and are govered by civil law, service members have rights under and are governed by military law.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 11:22 am
  75. I was a very promiscuous young man. Prior to my marriage, I had sex with over 100 women who were not my wife. While I was married, my ex-wife was physically and mentally ill, and during long periods of time when we did not have sex, I cheated on her several times (though I did tell her when it happened).

    I am now (several years later) very happily married to another woman, who also has an ex, who was also mentally ill and abusive, and whom she cheated on. In fact, she was separated when we met, and began our sexual relationship; which by the churches law was also adultery on both our parts. By the laws of our church, our marriage is invalid and we are living in sin (though we are working on that issue; the annulment process is difficult).

    All of these things were immoral according to my church, and most other churches; all of these things happened while I was either active or reserve.

    Does this mean I was unfit to serve?

    During my time in service, of all the married men I knew, at least half of them cheated; mostly openly and flagrantly. Of the single guys, almost everybody but the hardcore Mormons (there are a LOT of them in the AF) screwed around like pussy was water in the desert.

    All of these things are immoral, does this mean all those men were unfit to serve?

    As far as I’m concerned, cheating on your wife, and screwing around like a jackrabbit on crack, are worse morally than wanting to stick your dick in another guys ass. If we cashiered everyone who commited immoral acts, we’d have no military

    … well ‘cept those hardcore Mormons anyway.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 11:23 am
  76. As a gay man, I find the implications that we’ll do nothing but lust over straight men in the army corps showers to be laughable.

    Hint to the clueless (especially those who cannot spell or are throwing out boring, predictable rhetoric about how they’ll quit, etc.) — don’t flatter yourselves.

    You see, most straight guys just aren’t all that appealing, physically or emotionally, to the average gay guy. We’re not standing in the showers at the gym (or in the barracks) lusting after you — that’s your own bizarre fantasy.

    Now that that’s out of the way, let’s focus a bit on this whole “it will disrupt the army” nonsense.

    Right now, the army’s pretty disrupted. You’re recruiting convicts, murderers, convicted thieves, the absolute dregs of society into the fighting force due to a severe shortage.

    Who would you rather have covering your back — a gay guy who has a partner back home at base and serves honorably, or one of the desperate recruits who is on parole for manslaughter?

    Gay people often work much harder than their heterosexual contemporaries in similar roles because we have to. We don’t have default social institutions to prop us up, government welfare programs (“legal marriage”) to ensure that we don’t screw up our financial lives, etc. We’ve got to get more credentials, work longer hours, etc. just to prove to homophobes out there that we’re “good enough.”

    Just look at business, media, science, personal computing — loaded with gay and lesbian folks who have made epic contributions to the advancement of the field as a whole.

    The army needs more people like that — linguists, technologists to develop new stuff to keep the regular troops alive, etc.

    In short, it excludes the homosexual population at its detriment.

    Finally, there’s an ongoing assumption that allowing women and gays to serve openly is a “dangerous experiment.” Nope, it’s building a more effective army.

    If you want a “dangerous experiment,” try invading Iraq and betting that we’ll be “welcomed as liberators.”

    Comment by Brian Miller — March 14, 2007 @ 11:51 am
  77. Here is a General who feels like the majority of reasonable people contrary to your desire for a utopia social experiment

    Actually, as long ago as 2003, support for integration of the military was over 75% in the general US populace. It’s likely gone up since then.

    What the general represents is a small group of arrogant people who believe that their view — and only their view — is “reasonable.” Remember, this guy worked for and supported Donny Rumsfeld and his disastrous military policies.

    For him to support sending our men in uniform off to die in the desert — and actively support the bald-faced lying that the administration and his bosses were telling, which led to thousands of deaths — and then lecture anyone on “morality” is truly galling.

    Comment by Brian Miller — March 14, 2007 @ 11:54 am
  78. Brian, the relevant portion of your comments was good and useful stuff; your moral judgements on the war itself have no place in this discussion.

    Comment by Chris — March 14, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
  79. Brian,

    A few months ago I heard a television program coming from another room I was in. The dialogue sounded like a gay person being outed and confronted by his sargaents and a general. It sounded like they were discussing if he should get thrown out or not, etc.

    To my surprise, when I walked in the room, I realized I was hearing an old episode from M*A*S*H. And to greater surprise, it was not Klinger or a gay man they were talking to. In fact, it was a black man.

    So yes, it is time to life the ban on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

    You’re right, D.A.D.T. is morally wrong that it exists. D.A.D.T. is a disgrace to our country and the idea of freedom and equality itself, two qualities that make this country great to begin with. We lose those, we lose everything.

    Thanks
    G. Skala
    Chicago

    Comment by GS — March 14, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
  80. P.S. I’m 100% sure God shines on and blesses any relationship that is loving and committed, gay or straight. Who know is heterosexuals having homosexual sex is sinful or immoral. People have as many interests as they have hair on their heads. Time to leave gays alone

    Comment by GS — March 14, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
  81. I just find it TERRIBLY CONCEITED that people assume that “gays” are automatically attracted to all members of the same sex.
    GET OFF IT.
    No one wants to jump your ugly ass, especially the GAYS.

    Comment by smartypants — March 14, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
  82. “James, this is a statement of profound ignorance. Homosexuality occurs *everywhere* in nature. Try reading up on the subject before you wade into something you clearly know nothing about. “In no way can anyone even argue” – brother. There are whole *books* written on the subject. Go read a few.”

    um, rape is also *everywhere* in nature, so does that make it morally acceptable? try reading up on *that* subject. And how is homosexuality support your liberal ideology of *evolution* and the *survival of the fittest*? how can homosexuals survive…unless they are the end of the evolutionary process.

    Comment by steve — March 14, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
  83. Steve,
    I believe that the point was that in the “evolutionary” process homosexuality has no future. If homosexuals are the end of this process then mankind is finished. I find it strange how cognative ability diminishes as the mind attempts to justify an arguement with a pick and choose approach in regard to science and religon.
    As far as the DADT policy? Our military is currently having some problems recruiting new enlistees. Perhaps if the policy was abolished we would have a surge of patriotic homosexuals fighting against the tyrany of Islamic extremists.
    Would this thought be justified in the court of public opinion? Perhaps a statistical survey should be conducted.

    Comment by Peter — March 14, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
  84. Chris your comment at 3:34 on 14 Mar
    thus proves my point your non inclusive of views that don’t blend with your social utopia. When will you digest what you read???

    Comment by zen moda — March 15, 2007 @ 3:12 am
  85. Bleh, some of you are really poorly-informed and sickeningly homophobic. Take the time to learn, then come back and post informed comments.

    Comment by Chris (not the author) — March 15, 2007 @ 11:02 am
  86. I could not disagree more with this artile… everything about homosexuality is dishonorable because it is a violation of natural law… whether one believe in special creation or natural selection the statement is true that homosexuality is an abberation of the natural order… homosexuals can not reproduce except by seducing the mantally ill into embracing their despicable lifestype…. there is not place for that type of coercion in the armed forces, while I was in Nam I would not have resisted turning a self proclaimed pervert into a freindly fire statistic nor would I resist that temptation in country in the middle east conflict. Gays do not belong in the military.

    Comment by Rabbi Yossef — March 15, 2007 @ 11:11 am
  87. The willful ignorance displayed in these comments is shocking. Homosexuals do in fact reproduce, and always have when they had reason to do so. Homophobe can be used as an insult, and it can also be used as a simple descriptor. If being called a homophobe hurts your delicate little feewings, either toughen up and learn to love being hated or change your views.

    Comment by Erica — March 15, 2007 @ 11:23 am
  88. Well…
    If anyone is willing to disobey one Authority in Life, then he/she will be willing to disobey another and another, etc…
    Choosing ones Partner for life used to mean male and female. In America today, we allow freedom to choose in many areas that were once immoral but now are OK. We are changing.

    However, who says we should change to this or that type behavior or lifestyle? The people and groups that want to change America into a “Tolerant” Society for their own “feelings” or “agenda” must admit that they are making America into something they want but others don’t.

    Understand that Islam is trying to make a Muslim America, Gays try to make it a Gay America, Mexico wants a Hispanic America, etc.

    The fact is: America has done very well for the past 200 Years. Why in the world would you want to change Her into something she is not or into something that won’t work?

    Sacrificing your own personal Liberty for the good of the whole seems to be non-existent in many of the “People that want to Change America” groups minds.

    It’s a losing battle and there will be much persecution for anyone who doesn’t conform to their way of thinking. The Hate Speech Senate Bills will eventually go into effect. Even though we now enjoy Freedom of Speech (let’s use Preaching from the Bible about Homosexual Behavior), this to will be “Illegal”. We will only be able to “think” and not say what is on ours minds.
    Get ready America, change is immanent.

    Comment by GW — March 15, 2007 @ 11:34 am
  89. How dare all of you folks who think gays shouldn’t serve think you are worthy of being some sort of sex object? What are you thinking? Just because you are housed and showering with a gay person does not mean he/she wants to sleep with you or have sex with you. Who do you people think you are? Mature adults have self control…many who serve have relationships and may be just like you…they are not continually soliciting sex from folks who are deemed to be “not interested”. If a member of the same sex finds you attractive, consider it a compliment and move on. Trust me, most gay men find straight men one step above amoebas on the food chain.

    Comment by Tim Eigenfeld — March 15, 2007 @ 11:36 am
  90. I support General Pace COMPLETELY!!. And so do about 90% of Americans. Those liberal pollsters are out of touch!!

    God Bless America!!

    Comment by DEC — March 15, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
  91. I support General Pace COMPLETELY!!. And so do about 90% of Americans. Those liberal pollsters are out of touch!!

    God Bless America!!!!

    Comment by DEC — March 15, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
  92. If a member of the same sex Mr. Eigenfeld, finds me attractive and he lets me know it. He will most assuredly NOT like my reply.

    It’s comments like yours which insult me. How dare you…say such a thing. It’s so unnatural….

    Comment by DEC — March 15, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
  93. 90% of Americans? Which America do you live in and what color is the sky there?

    Nick

    Comment by Nick M. — March 15, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
  94. To the guy who called homosexuality as essnetially an evolutionary dead-end…well, see if you’re going to start throwing evolution around, then you have to look at the bigger population-dynamic picture – a reason there’s homosexuality in social mammalian populations is because it provides a steady source of additional “worker” adults who themselves do not add extra population pressure. They don’t reproduce, but they can still gather food for the pack. Similarly, post-menopausal/infertile mammals don’t immediately die, as they can easily continue to provide to the next generation long after their reproductive ability has ended.

    Natural selection wouldn’t allow an entire species to become homosexual (since it would cause extinction), but it would certainly allow a percentage of that population to if that trait helped the species survive and thrive over the long term.

    Of course, if you’re a creationist, then this argument won’t have much bearing. But then, if you’re going to get hot and bothered by the penteteuch I suggest you not wear any mixed fibers or eat shellfish – that’s all pretty abominable too.

    Comment by MShabinsky — March 15, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
  95. I laugh at Gay activist. You do have the same rights as everyone else. But you want more . You want the right to marry. And that ain’t gonna happen…EVER. Get over it and move on.

    But i do agree that a couple living together whether friends or lovers or whatever..no matter what the sex should have the right to share benefits. You contribute .. you have the right. Period. But marriage sanctioned by the state..ain’t just gonna happen.

    Comment by DEC — March 15, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
  96. Chris

    Just for you I will post my credentials, ref yor comments 15 Mar 11:02, to my blog comment 14 Mar (zen) and my experience is more then a 3-4 year tour with the service along with being raised in a pitry dish of some liberal professors radical view of a kumbyaa world, were we could all just hold hands sing “We shall overcome” and now your the master of gay speak for vets…which somehow in your little world makes you the Forrest Gump of gayism… My world which you refer as “bleh, as poorly informed and full of failure to learn), consists of 20 years active US Army, Infantry, 8 years stationed, living & breathing oversea’s, 3 shooting (combat for liberals) deployements, 27 different countries 24 of our states, 3 languages self taught and interaction with everytype of walking, crawling, skipping, breathing, talking, religous/non, gay/striaght and race/view feasible to humankind have experienced just short of antarctic polar bears. So please Chris get off your ass and stop blogging for a second and let me suggest you get your read and learn ON!!!

    Comment by zen moda — March 15, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
  97. Excuse me Zen, but if you HAD read what I wrote, and what I said in comments, you would have noted that not only did I not advocate that which you were speaking against, but I sepcfically spoke against much of it.

    I specifically noted the potential sexual behavior and disciplinary issues involved, and that I thought social experimentation was a bad idea. I HATE social engineering, and there is no way currently to integrate open homosexuality with our military without causing massive upheval and problems. I believe it WILL be done eventually, but now is not the time, and I specifically state so.

    Further, I also noted that I hate what you call “gayism”, and other sociopolitical/cultural war bullshit such that a portion of gays in america insist on shoving in everybodies faces and down everybodies throats.

    My point is that a persons private sexual morals have nothing to do with their fitness to serve; and that DADT is a dishonest, and dishonorable policy, WHETHER YOU THINK GAYS SHOULD SERVE OR NOT.

    Either route them all out, or let them all in; but don’t pretend that as long as no-one knows they are gay, they’re valuable service members, but as soon as someone finds out, they are no longer.

    That is the height of hypocrisy, and is disingenuous at best; but to my mind dishonorable.

    So either you didn’t read what I wrote, or you did, ignored it, and substituted your own words in your head for mine.

    Comment by Chris — March 15, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
  98. Oh and Rabbi Yosseff, If you are in fact a Rabbi, that is a disgraceful comment upon your congregation, and your sect of Judaism if they condone orr support your beliefs.

    The idea that a man of god should preach death to someone for their sexual prefference…

    You are no better than those sick bastards in the mosques and madrasas preaching YOUR execution, you sick bastard.

    Comment by Chris — March 15, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
  99. “I believe that the point was that in the “evolutionary” process homosexuality has no future. If homosexuals are the end of this process then mankind is finished. I find it strange how cognative ability diminishes as the mind attempts to justify an arguement with a pick and choose approach in regard to science and religon.”

    “Gays try to make it a Gay America”

    “I laugh at Gay activist. You do have the same rights as everyone else. But you want more . You want the right to marry.”

    “there is no way currently to integrate open homosexuality with our military without causing massive upheval and problems.”

    “homosexuals can not reproduce except by seducing the mantally ill into embracing their despicable lifestype”

    Hey, let’s just have ourselves a good old faggot burn right here and now. I know I’m plenty disgusted whenever I fantasize about some hot muscular redhead rubbing his throbbing mantool over every inch of my bound and naked flesh. I only wish I could stop thinking about it. It disgusts me. Great to read your comments here!

    God Bless America!!! And all you wonderful people.

    Comment by Jack — March 16, 2007 @ 12:08 am
  100. MShabinsky,
    I appreciate the point you made regarding natural selection but I would have to distance myself from the oblique correlation of homosexuals and “worker” bees. I think that persons of same sex attraction may find this offensive.

    Perhaps homosexualty is a way for nature to control the population, of course this only works without mankind’s artificial interjection of unnatural propagation. There must be a concerted effort to maintain current homosexual population levels if there is to be a future for the group as a whole. The loss of homosexual genetic diversity would be too great if sympathetic straights were to be the major source of additional biologic material.
    I would suggest that you and your partner use only surrogates of same sex orientation to guarantee your offspring will share your belief system as well as your genetic disposition.
    I would also like to see moral refrences taken from other sources than the Bible or Torah. Why not the Koran? How about some of the teachings of Buddah? The counter arguements seem to be one dimensional when they continually use anti Christian or anti Semetic rhetoric.

    Comment by Peter — March 20, 2007 @ 1:10 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML