2
   

Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

 
 
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 06:22 pm
Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

By Aamer Madhani
Tribune national correspondent
Published March 12, 2007, 5:28 PM CDT
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexuality is "immoral" and on par with having an extramarital affair.

Addressing the controversial policy as part of a wide-ranging interview with the Tribune in Chicago, Pace said the military should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his "upbringing," in which certain types of conduct were thought to be immoral.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts...," Pace said, while also calling it immoral for military members to commit adultery with another service member's spouse. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in anyway.

In the interview, Pace also said that a provision in the House Democrats' proposal to wind down the war could hamper President Bush's planned troop "surge" in Iraq by creating gaps in troop levels.

The military's current policy on homosexuals is based on legislation signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 which states that gays and lesbians may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation private. Commanders may not ask, and gay service members may not tell.

Supporters argue it is necessary to maintain the cohesion of U.S. troops, but critics condemn it as discriminatory. The policy has come into question once again as the Pentagon and Congress grapple with a military stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops have been discharged because of the policy. Among those discharged were more than 322 linguists, including 54 Arabic specialists, according to the Government Accountability Office report.

"The real question is: what is moral about discharging qualified linguists during a time of war simply for being gay or lesbian?" said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group. "Our military needs the best qualified men and women who are willing to serve in the military, protect our freedoms and preserve our American values of equality."

About 23 percent of troops say they know for sure that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, according to a Zogby International poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan that was published in December. About 55 percent of the troops who know a gay peer said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well known by others.

Last month, Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) revived the debate by introducing legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly serving homosexuals. Meehan's proposal has 106 sponsors, including six Republicans. Meehan and gay rights organizations have expressed hope of reversing the policy now that Democrats are in charge of the House and Senate.

The issue is also starting to percolate in the 2008 presidential campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), a longtime foe of the policy her husband signed into law, has stated that it should repealed. Sen. Sam Brownback ( R-Kan.), says a repeal would be ill-advised.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 9,353 • Replies: 204
No top replies

 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 06:23 pm
deja vu one more time...
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 06:23 pm
"Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops have been discharged because of the policy. Among those discharged were more than 322 linguists, including 54 Arabic specialists, according to the Government Accountability Office report."
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 06:57 pm
What would you call it?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:06 pm
cjhsa, I would call it friend. The war in Iraq is immoral.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:08 pm
I don't agree with him at all but he is entitled to his opinion and the fact that his opinion coincides with what the Army has been saying forever shouldn't be a surprise.

It sounds like he thinks any sex outside of marriage is immoral.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:24 pm
boomerang wrote:
I don't agree with him at all but he is entitled to his opinion and the fact that his opinion coincides with what the Army has been saying forever shouldn't be a surprise.

It sounds like he thinks any sex outside of marriage is immoral.


No he said having sex with someone who isn't your spouse was immoral. He didn't make a comment that I saw on sex before marriage, that is your words not his.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:27 pm
Oops. Sorry. Brain fart.

Edit:

Oh wait.

Maybe not a brain fart.

If you aren't yet married and you have sex you are having sex with someone who is not your spouse.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:40 pm
boomerang wrote:
Oops. Sorry. Brain fart.

Edit:

Oh wait.

Maybe not a brain fart.

If you aren't yet married and you have sex you are having sex with someone who is not your spouse.


He used the term adultery. That means sleeping around with someone who isn't your spouse. Meaning married couples. Adultery doesn't apply to non-married couples in the military.

Yep. Brain fart!
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:42 pm
I'm sure it won't be the last time it happens to me.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:43 pm
I'm not sure why this is still a deal of any kind, big or small. Other countries' militaries have moved way past this - some, several decades back, and nothing horrible happened.

Then again, women in the U.S. military are still having problems.

The private war of women soldiers

Quote:
Rape, sexual assault and harassment are nothing new to the military. They were a serious problem for the Women's Army Corps in Vietnam, and the rapes and sexual hounding of Navy women at Tailhook in 1991 and of Army women at Aberdeen in 1996 became national news. A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all the wars since, who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder, found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while in the military. And in a third study, conducted in 1992-93 with female veterans of the Gulf War and earlier wars, 90 percent said they had been sexually harassed in the military


Perhaps the answer is no straight men in the U.S. military? Cool
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:48 pm
boomerang wrote:
I'm sure it won't be the last time it happens to me.


Don't feel bad. Your not the first to jump on a thread with a wrong quote. I even have the bad habit of giving people credit for things they didn't say.

Eagerness can be a bitch!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 07:59 pm
boomerang wrote:
I don't agree with him at all but he is entitled to his opinion and the fact that his opinion coincides with what the Army has been saying forever shouldn't be a surprise.


I agree with this entirely. He is entitled to his opinion, and the expression thereof, so long as making the expression cannot be construed as an effort to circumvent legal policy, and so long as he acts within the law, whether or not it coincides with his opinion.

Tempest in a teapot stuff here.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 08:00 pm
Setanta wrote:
boomerang wrote:
I don't agree with him at all but he is entitled to his opinion and the fact that his opinion coincides with what the Army has been saying forever shouldn't be a surprise.


I agree with this entirely. He is entitled to his opinion, and the expression thereof, so long as making the expression cannot be construed as an effort to circumvent legal policy, and so long as he acts within the law, whether or not it coincides with his opinion.

Tempest in a teapot stuff here.


Indeed!
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 08:01 pm
I think any sexual matter is only the armed forces' business in so far as there might be activity within a command structure, thus potentially causing conflict in the carrying out of duty - the same for the whole range of sexual attractions, whatever the usual rules are re heterosexual personnel in the armed forces..

That a general or a Pentagon would tell the entire armed forces what is moral or immoral in their private affairs is inappropriate, unless the instances in question itself involved force or harassment.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 08:24 am
Setanta wrote:
boomerang wrote:
I don't agree with him at all but he is entitled to his opinion and the fact that his opinion coincides with what the Army has been saying forever shouldn't be a surprise.


I agree with this entirely. He is entitled to his opinion, and the expression thereof, so long as making the expression cannot be construed as an effort to circumvent legal policy, and so long as he acts within the law, whether or not it coincides with his opinion.

Tempest in a teapot stuff here.


Believe it or not this was my thought when reading this article in my morning news.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 08:27 am
When I think of how these immoral fag bastards have tainted our incredibly moral actions in Iraq it just makes me furious.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 09:40 am
ehBeth wrote:
I'm not sure why this is still a deal of any kind, big or small. Other countries' militaries have moved way past this - some, several decades back, and nothing horrible happened.

Then again, women in the U.S. military are still having problems.

The private war of women soldiers

Quote:
Rape, sexual assault and harassment are nothing new to the military. They were a serious problem for the Women's Army Corps in Vietnam, and the rapes and sexual hounding of Navy women at Tailhook in 1991 and of Army women at Aberdeen in 1996 became national news. A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all the wars since, who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder, found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while in the military. And in a third study, conducted in 1992-93 with female veterans of the Gulf War and earlier wars, 90 percent said they had been sexually harassed in the military


Perhaps the answer is no straight men in the U.S. military? Cool


Hi, Eh-Beth

I presume you have some evidence that show other countries' militaries that permit homosexuality have lesser incidences of sexual harrassment than the US military?
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 09:51 am
What this thread shows is an amazing intolerance of another person's moral position. Isn't a person allowed to have a moral position that differs from yours? And isn't he allowed to express it?

I agree with Sentana...as long as he abides by the legal policy when confronted with it in the course of his duties (in this case, that means separating all those who admit homosexuality), then his personal moral position on the matter is irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:01 am
Group representing gays dismissed from military wants apology from Joint Chiefs chair Mike Sheehan
Published: Tuesday March 13, 2007

A gay advocacy group is demanding an apology from the Pentagon's top general for recent comments the group deems disparaging.

"In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces," Pauline Jelinek writes for The Associated Press.

The advocacy group seeking the apology, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN)--which has legally represented servicemembers forced out of the military--released a statement on its website asserting that "General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces."

Pace told The Chicago Tribune yesterday, in discussing his support for the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."

A spokesperson for a gay rights group called Pace's comments "insulting and offensive to the men and women ... who are serving in the military honorably," writes Jelinek for the AP.

One of Pace's predecessors as Pentagon chief, Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.), recently called for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, writing, "We must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

The full Associated Press article can be found at this link. The full SLDN press release, available at its official site, follows...
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Group_representing_gays_booted_from_military_0313.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2022 at 08:04:34