Back in the Closet, You!

The article in question:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070312pace,1,864651.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, stated in a newspaper interview on Monday that homosexuality was immoral and the military should not support immorality by allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces thus securing his title of Lord God King Nimrod. Hail to the king, baby!

From the article:
""I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said."

(So only acts between two individuals are immoral? What about three or four?)

Let's examine a few points on this one, shall we?

First, get a little perspective here!!! The top member of an organization whose duties include the killing of other human beings thinks that homosexuality is immoral?!?! Did I miss a memo or something? When did who you shag surpass who you kill in the moral hierarchy? So it's ok to invade another country, with all the killing, mayhem and general wackiness that goes along with it, based on a lie but having an affinity for people with the same naughty bits as you is wrong?

I'm sure he thinks that he is making some sort of stand for what he believes in. My take on the matter is somewhat different (I know. Shocking, huh?). Notice that he doesn't say that they should not serve, just that they shouldn't serve openly. If he was really standing up for his beliefs, wouldn't he have said that they shouldn't be allowed to serve at all? Oops, that's right! I forgot that humans are not very good at standing up for what they believe in when it becomes inconvenient. Fact is, the military needs all the warm able bodies it can get right now.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning! It smells like...

So, we should just have two standards then, right? The heterosexuals can talk about and express themselves in the manner that most humans are accustomed to but homosexuals should keep their mouths shut and just play along. Sure the standard will be separate, but they will also be equal, right? That should work out just fine, separate but equal. Wait, why does that sound familiar? Seems to me there was a time in our relatively recent history when the government tried to tell another group of people that things would be separate but equal and that worked out oh so well didn't it?

Now normally I would be the first one to defend an individual's right to express his or her own opinion but in this case, there is a bit of a snag. He didn't express this opinion as a private citizen, he expressed it a member of our government. Do we really want our government deciding what is and is not "moral"? I know it already does this to a certain extent, but that just goes to further illustrate my point. Do you agree with the government on everything that it says is right and wrong? Are these folks the shining examples of what should be?

This man signed up for a very simple job, do what is best for the country. I would love to hear the logic underlying the conclusion that having gays serve openly hurts the country. Notice I said logic. "Because it is written in a book somewhere" or "Because that's the way I was brought up" do not count as logic. They count as a painfully weak attempt to legitimize bigotry.

I freely admit that he is not alone in his opinion. Many members of the service I have spoken to share the same opinion. Not one of them, however, has been able to give me a logical, well thought out reason why they have this opinion. The usual response is either "because it is just wrong" or "you can't trust someone who might try to jump on you the second you bend over for something". The former is a non-argument, the latter it evidence of delusions of grandeur. Unless you happen to be me, not everyone in the world is so attracted to you that they just cant help but try and get near you. (stop laughing, it could happen! Or, ya know, not.)

I have also heard it said that the sex drive is the strongest drive in the human psyche. Not so. It is only the second strongest, the first being the survival instinct. I don't care how attractive a woman is, if shots are fired, my first impulse is not to try and get in her pants. Maybe that's just me though.

No matter how you cut it or try to frame it, bigotry is still just that




Rant Over... for now

UPDATE

03/14/07 2:17 am

To his credit Gen. Pace has said, in light of all the flack he garnered for his comments, that he should not have voiced his personal views and should have just stated his support for the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Unfortunately, thing cannot be un-said and we were all offered a view up the good General's skirt and the view was not pretty. Bigotry is still bigotry, even if it isn't said out loud.

The fact remains that there is still a double standard, on set of rules for homosexuals and one for heterosexuals. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a necessary first step, but that's all it should have been. It was necessary because humans, as a general rule, are slow to accept change. You throw in many, many years of tradition in there and you really have an uphill battle. The time, however, has come to move on to what comes after. The time has long since come for us to allow everyone to serve openly regardless of orientation.

Rant Over... for now... um, again