Gen. Pace Calls Homosexuality 'Immoral'

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I am not very fond of Peter Pace, but I will say this. The military is not a social program. It is a machine designed for one thing: winning wars. How do you win wars? Cohesion. Yes, it is unfortunate that the military is not very diverse in terms of outlooks on life and backgrounds. But that's the way it is and cannot be changed, unless conscription is instituted.

If anything is done to affect that cohesion, the military suffers. That cannot ever be allowed to happen. If that means homosexuals have to stay in the closet, so be it.

Let me make one thing clear. This IS NOT an argument against homosexuality. This is an argument against the military's ability to handle the existence of homosexuals. The military is complicit in this, not homosexuals. I just want to make that clear.




posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tator3
When I read the responses of the HomoPhobes...I just cant help but get sick. You people are so rediculous. Get with the times...too bad you werent born in the 40's you could of hung people and got away with it..you haters. Jesus, wake up!!! I hope all of you homohaters have gay children. What you gonna do then? OH...disown them I guess. Sicko's.


I find it ironic that those that clamor for tolerance are the most intolerant of those that don't share their views. The military's sole function is to win wars, not social experimentation. Anything that has a negative affect on unit cohesion and morale has to be looked at on its merits. How would you feel if men and women were compelled to live together, share bathrooms/showers/toilets? Do you think that might cause some privacy issue problems? Do you think that straight men and women shouldn't have the same expectations to not be in close intimate quarters with those that might be sexually attracted to them? Do you think that could potentially create issues with folks that have to put their lives in the hands of their coworkers? The military isn't like working in an office with folks, like a regular job. That's why anything from adultery, to homosexuality, to fraternization, etc.. are frowned upon, because they adversely affect units



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The "unit cohesion" arguments were also the primary arguments made against desegregation of the armed forces, which was no doubt considered "social experimentation" back then too. That particular "experiment" seems to have worked out pretty well. Fifty years from now, chances are we will consider this debate just as absurd as we now do the arguments made against racial desegregation.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Already on the third page and nobody mentioned the security concerns of gays in the military and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I don't know if it is true today, but in the past homosexuals were not allowed in the CIA, FBI, and other agencies where one's job would put them into contact with sensitive data. Not just homosexuals, but anybody engaged in what's considered deviant behavior, unstable personal life, etc. The idea is that blackmail is one of the biggest ways the enemy gets one of our people to spy for them. In this regard, perhaps the "don't ask, don't tell" policy does even more harm - e.g. a gay officer is seduced by an enemy agent, and poof - you give us the information we want or your career is over.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I find myself ashamed to have served under General Pace.

I honestly don't understand why this is a big deal.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   


In this regard, perhaps the "don't ask, don't tell" policy does even more harm - e.g. a gay officer is seduced by an enemy agent, and poof - you give us the information we want or your career is over.


Seems to me this is an argument for gays being able to serve overtly instead of covertly. Someone who doesn't have anything to hide to protect their career is far less vulnerable to blackmail than someone who does...



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
In this current age of political correctness and overt censure, it is deplorable that an American citizen is unable to express his personal opinion with out the potential backlash of the press and the public.

One of the fundamental rights the Constitution affords us is the Freedom of Speech. That means thats one's opinion is sacrosanct and can be voiced with out fear of retribution. One may argue that the General, while in uniform, is speaking on behalf of the military, but the inclusive language used relates the fact that he is stating his opinion of a behavior and his personal views on the impact it may have on the perception of todays military force.

When one takes the oath and assumes the uniform of his or her respective service, he has agreed to abide by the rules and regulations set forth in the U.C.M.J. This explicitly stipulates that sexual relations between members of the same sex are grounds for immediate dismissal. Knowing this fact, a homosexual service member is forced to make a choice. Either set aside your social, romantic and sexual life for the term of service, or break this oath by acting out and betraying your word. This is a point of personal honor. Having served, I observed both types of behaviour.

Life is not a vacuum devoid of social observations, and the members of the military that were descriminated against due to their sexual preference were usually playing a game of smoke and mirrors. They were more often poor performing sailors who were not shipshape and squared away and were using their ideology to justify themselves and incriminate those they felt threatened by. Other homosexual sailors were of the highest performing caliber and were held in high esteem for their exemplary performance. In all conduct their sexuality was never a raised issue, since it was not mentioned or acted upon. In such close quarters, one learns people and their ways, and could justifiably identify those who may be gay, but with the lack of any complaints in their performance and service, the issue was never raised.

This General and all other Amercian citizens are entitled to their opinion and the freedom to voice such thought. Even the most radical homophobe is allowed to hate me with every fiber of his being, and is certainly entitled to voice his opinions. Where speech becomes actions becomes the breaking point.

I am an American citizen who proudly served my country, and fulfilled every point of the contract that I had undertaken. While this may have deprived me of certain aspects of a social life, this was the sacrifice I knowingly made to serve my country. Would to God that others would do the same.

-USNStang-



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Well said USNStang!

I wish all soilders held themselves to such high standards. If that were the case this situation would most likely never come up.

The only reason I feel the General was wrong improper was because he was in uniform, and like any soilder what you say does reflect on that uniform.

For Gen. Pace to say it is immoral to be homosexual while he is in uniform is where he crossed the line.

Immoral
adjective
1. deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong [ant: moral, amoral]
2. not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds"

I agree with him that homosexual soliders should not be "open" at least for now because it does cause added friction in the units. But to say it is immoral is to say it's wrong to be homosexual. Yes he's entitled to his opinion but when he's in his uniform he represents more than just his opinion.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Seems to me this is an argument for gays being able to serve overtly instead of covertly. Someone who doesn't have anything to hide to protect their career is far less vulnerable to blackmail than someone who does...


Right, you're absolutely correct. That's why I was questioning whether or not it does more harm than good, it's a lot like just going out and saying "no gays in the military" but if somebody wanted to join enough they'd just lie about it. But if it gays were openly allowed to serve you have the whole cohesion argument that's already been covered. I don't have the answers to make everyone happy - gay-only units? Gay boot camp? You can't get around the fact that most people in our country are uncomfortable with and working closely with homosexuals, something that's particularly crucial when lives hang in the balance.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
and resistancia, provide some evidence to back up your claim of greeks and roman homosexuals in the military.

Even if you dont believe in God, Homosexual sex, especially in men, poses serious health risks. Can be in women as well if they have anal sex with strap on dildos.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by XphilesPhan]



The Spartans were quite famous for their sexual predation on the younger ranks (Paul Cartledge and Tom Holland are two historians that spring to mind re. the subject), as well as the habit of seasoned veterans "adopting" a young companion. Athenians had a particular appetite for prostitutes (as well as hansome chaps) and kept their wives firmly out of public life. Romans tended to keep that sort of thing under wraps (Homosexuality, like beards, was seen as "Greek") mainly since it could ruin a promising career.

Heterosexual sex, especially in a warzone, can pose serious health risks. The second most dangerous weapon a soldier has is probably his dick.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by DenyAllKnowledge]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I'm just thinking about some of the stories I heard about squaddies on leave or out drinking themselves senseless, or bullying in the ranks, or visiting whore houses or gang rapes or...etc etc. Seems the question of immorality isn't confined to homosexuals when it's applied to the military so why is it always the one thats brought up.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The "unit cohesion" arguments were also the primary arguments made against desegregation of the armed forces, which was no doubt considered "social experimentation" back then too. That particular "experiment" seems to have worked out pretty well. Fifty years from now, chances are we will consider this debate just as absurd as we now do the arguments made against racial desegregation.


This is not analogous(no pun intended). There's a huge difference between race/origin and behavior/sexual attraction. It's one thing to be in close quarters in situations where there is little or no privacy with someone who looks different, and quite another to be in that same situation with someone who may or may not be sexually aroused by you.
As a civilian, you can pretty much avoid situations for the most part where you have no privacy, but that's not the case in the military. As a civilian, if someone creeps you out, at least(unless you're in law enforcement, etc..) you don't have the responsibility for one another's lives. In the military you have to put you life in other's hands, and have absolute trust in them. That's why anything that betrays that trust is dealt with harshly.
Additionally, there's higher incidences of HIV among homosexuals than in non intravenous drug using heterosexuals. In combat, you may very well be covered in blood, treating fellow soldiers, etc.. without protective gear.
Furthermore, as a soldier(sailor, airmen, marine), your off duty behavior is a reflection of you particular service. If you're out in public showing your [bottom](so to speak), you're discrediting yourself and your service.

Mod Edit: Please don't circumvent the censors

[edit on 3/14/07/14 by junglejake]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join