Gen. Pace hasn't apologized for his remarks about "homosexual acts" and shouldn't have to. He was expressing his personal opinion based on his religious beliefs, an opinion shared by many in this country and probably most in the military. It doesn't advance the debate to trumpet outrage instead of arguing with him.
But I do disagree with a premise of his position:
The written statement by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not apologize for his stance on homosexuality. In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
After a flurry of condemnation Tuesday, Pace issued a statement acknowledging that the Defense Department's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays is a sensitive subject and said: "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
Morality, it seems to me, involves how we treat others -- there is no morality or immorality if you're alone on a desert island. Homosexual activity, assuming it is between consenting adults, is not the moral equivalent of adultery, which deceives and harms an unwilling third party.
Comments
Yes, he's expressing his personal opinion based on his religious beliefs.
If it were his personal opinion based on his religious beliefs that Jews and Catholics will burn in hell unless they repent and become Southern Baptists, he'd get pilloried for expressing it. Why should it be any different in this case?
Those kinds of personal beliefs are best kept to oneself.
A real study in duplicity if ever I saw one....
On the one hand, we're a nation founded on freedoms, such as freedom of speech.
On the other hand, it's "not correct" to express your BELIEFS, thereby negating your "freedom" to speak your mind.
Personally, if the guy in the foxhole next to me is more concerned about COVERING my ass instead of COVETING it, I don't have a problem, whether he's gay, straight, black white, brown, Catholic, Jewish, or anything in between.
B.G.
Most of us straight guys don't keep ourselves up well enough to be particularly desirable to the gay guys. You know, just to overgeneralize in any number of different directions.
But this isn't a free speech issue. The deal with free speech is that the government isn't going to sanction a private citizen for speaking out. Government employees can be sanctioned due to their employment. If you say stupid stuff, there is absolutely no guarantee that other private citizens won't call you on it.
What, precisely, is immoral about "homosexual acts." And, "the Bible tells me so" doesn't cut it. If that were sufficient, then I would be "unclean" if I hugged my wife while she was menstruating. (Leviticus 15:19). According to the Bible, I can own slaves, provided they are Mexican or Canadian. (Leviticus 25:44). Working on Sunday is punishable by death. (Exodus 35:2). Eating lobster or shrimp is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), just like homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22).
In other words, the Bible contains any number of ridiculous prohibitions. If it is to be used as a source of authority on the subject of "homosexual acts," then some justification must be provided beyond the Bible for reviling "homosexual acts" while permitting a person to eat shellfish, for example.
Good points Doug...
But were I to invoke Christian "beliefs" here, I could say that ALL the "Old Testament" is pretty much "old hat", because Jesus had said we are all under a NEW covenent (and new testament), so all the unclean aspects have been purged.
The prohibitions you cite (quite well too...and I am guilty of still liking some of them) were under the auspices of the pre-Jesus era, and Christians today seem to hold only to what is in the NEW testament (viewing the old testament more like a history of the Jews), unlike the Hebrew faith that ascribes to the OLD testament and believes that the Messiah is still forthcoming.
But hey, I used to teach in church...what can you say?
The orthodoxy today is more blurred than we can imagine.
(pass the clarified butter)
;)
B.G.
Did Jesus issue any prohibitions against homosexuality?
I'm not a scholar by any means, but it seems like I would've heard about any such prohibitions coming directly from The Man himself. (Maybe some New Testament stuff coming from Paul -- I don't care much for Paul, myself, but that's a different debate.)
Jesus DID state that they (his followers) were NO LONGER under "the law" (the old testament), but under a new covenant (himself and his teachings)...so take from that what you will.
And one could read more into his "new commendment" that we "love one another", couldn't one?
It makes a good case, either way.
B.G.
I guess what confuses me is not so much Christians deeming homosexuality to be immoral, but more why homosexuality is so high up on the list of problems. I guess I can't generalize that this is true of all Christians. Perhaps, the loudest, most politically active Christians covered by the main stream media. Jesus said a lot of stuff about peace, humility, and charity. But, failing to be peaceful, humble, and charitable doesn't seem to present anything like the problem being gay does.
>there is no morality or
>immorality if you're alone on
>a desert island
I'd say there is. It's the point of "Lord of the Flies" for example. Of course, one has to have had some exposure to a mode of civilization, or at least one book espousing a moral view, to know what one "should" do, morally speaking -- unless you believe a sense of morality is innate or instinctive in humans. But science says we mammals have to be taught.
The immorality in Lord of the Flies comes from the fact that the characters are not alone. What makes the book interesting is how the boys interact once the constraints of society are removed.
More to the point of Leo's comment would probably be something like Robinson Crusoe.
I never understood the point of Lord of the Flies, since children wear the cloak of civilization very lightly. It would be much scarier to see the most civilized adults revert to savagery. And Robinson Crusoe entered the moral arena when he encountered Friday and had to decide how to treat him.
so its ok to kill your fellow man in the military; because its a "just" war;
but its immoral to "love your fellow man"
in the military?
love your fellow man; just dont "love" your fellow man?
but "kill! kill! kill! ???
Barry goldwater once said something to the effect " when you are in a foxhole getting shot at, you dont care if the guy fighting next to you is straight; as long as he can shoot straight.
"Stonewall" Jackson, maybe- how many gays fought in the civil war/ww2/korea/ vietnam/gwot?
Gays in the military should also apply to sheriffs depts; police depts; etc.
and if the person in question breaks sexual harassment laws, and everybody is complaining about them, then it is an issue.
I served in the Nave. I have known a few "steers, and queers"- as the standard boot camp line goes. they didnt bother me, but that didnt make them evil or bad. It just messes up the natural male bonding instinct- like i said- love your fellow man; just dont "love" your fellow man.
And if he's the enemy- kill them; before he kills you.
You might be right that Crusoe's morality started up again when Friday came on the scene. But, I recently reread the book, and had forgotten a lot of it. I hadn't remembered just how religious Crusoe was during his period of isolation. Religion and morality aren't necessarily the same thing, however.
I agree. Why exactly is "homosexuality" at the top of the list? Since when did what people did in their bedrooms have ANYTHING to do with their CIVIL RIGHTS? Why has it been made a prominent talking point issue? Don't we have more important things to talk about like Terrorism, National Security, Global warming (which is real), Darfur, relationships with Mexico and South America, the big three automakers. Why oh Why does it seem that we just like talking about sex all the time? Are we just a bunch of idiots? It seems that we would spend the dieing days of the planet entertaining philosophical discussions about the role of government in our personal lives instead of simply recognizing the right of everyone to be treated fairly and everyone being entitled to hold and SPEAK those personal religious beliefs that are important to them.
Leo wrote:
>I never understood the point of
>Lord of the Flies, since
>children wear the cloak of
>civilization very lightly. It
>would be much scarier to see the
>most civilized adults revert to
>savagery.
I understand and agree in general. I once wrote an e-mail to Marilyn Vos Savant asking her to opine on whether human children are born with a sense of civilized behavior. She didn't answer directly but shortly thereafter published a comment saying that babies are not born instinctively civilized, but have to be taught everything if they are to rise above the animals.
Granting the truth of that, then LORD OF THE FLIES (the book) examines a test case in which the most innocent of humans will easily slough off the loose coat of civilized behavior if isolated from civilization.
People from Rod Serling to countless others have examined the adult version of the scenario from at least as far back as the 50s until today.
The kids in FLIES were actually a more original take on the topic.