Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

By

General Pace Grievious’ [http://en.wikipedia….]

only recognized weakness in battle was his inability to use the Force. He was not a Jedi or Sith, and because of his lack of midi-chlorians, he had no Force wielding capabilities.

Pity, no clue about the Force.  In fact AP reported that he

did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

….the evil empire strikes back.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I think it pays to remind folks that Pace isn’t some minor dingbat, he’s the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  FOr him to spout such religious-bassed, “I think it’s immoral, so there!” crap is beyond reprehensible.  You can listen to part of hist testimony at Think Progress.
    Or bone up on your christofascist rhetoric here.

    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.

    …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.”

  2. …the US military has become dominated by conservative evangelical Christians http://www.salon.com… so Pace’s comment isn’t a surprise.  Neither was the comment of some general a few years ago saying–while in uniform–that his Christian god was more powerfull that the Muslim one.

    • surprising he is willing to show that his personal “upbringing”, which isn’t even as strong as a personally formed belief, is running the show.  Pathetic.  And of course, he could have couched it in the “unit cohesion” kind of talk if he had wanted to begentle.  But no he chose to be an ass, and thinks it’s ok to do so.  At least Powell kept the rhetoric polite.

    • I noticed that Pace chose to compare homosexuality to adultery, instead of sex before marriage, as an example. 

      <

      p>
      Many of Pace’s world view would find the later immoral as well, but I doubt that they would have any expectation that the military would uphold this as moral injunction for soldiers.  Depending on your political frame of reference, this either points to hypocrisy or leads to the observation that the military has its own moral code with rules different from the civilian culture.

      • Do ya think?  The military is held to a higher standard via the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

        <

        p>
        That’s why when you screw up in the military (their definitionof screwing up) you receive a court martial, you are reduced in rank, you are fined, you are imprisoned, then your sorry butt is kicked out of the service—as it should be.

        <

        p>
        I belive General Pace was exercising his right under the first amendment. We still do have a first amendment right do we not?

        • granted by in 2006 alone by the Army to heterosexuals with baaaad things on their records. 

          <

          p>
          When all is said and done, I guess the general isn’t really too worried about morality.  Only, that is, when it suits his biggoted personal upbringing.

        • So why should Pace make any comparison to civilian moral codes? 

          <

          p>
          If homosexual acts (with anyone, civilian or otherwise) is forbidden by the UCMJ, then at least you have some consistency, and Pace’s (personal) statement is not only hypocritical, but irrelevant.  I don’t know enough to understand how the UCMJ changes with social changes, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it has and will, though at a slower pace. 

          <

          p>
          Let’s not get any panties in a bunch about first amendment issues. It was unclear at the time of the interview if Pace was expressing his personal opinion, or was indeed speaking as a policymaker.  This understandably caused upset by those who did not share his views. Pace had to clarify that he was giving a personal opinion in a separate press release. His personal opinion is rather close-minded to say the least, but not surprising given his earlier head-spinning personal expressions of belief.

          <

          p>
          I have no reason doubt that Pace will support any policy in place, even if it changes to allow gays to openly serve in the future.

  3. …Truman’s order to integrate the military, either.  And that seems to have worked out in the long run.

    <

    p>
    The increasing presence of women in the military in combat roles makes the anti-gay argument less compelling.

    <

    p>
    And if you have liberals, especially teachers, constantly denigrating military service and calling the miltary liars – how can you be surprised if the Armed Serices as a whole have become more conservative and less representative of society as a whole?

    • I’m tired of this “liberals hate the military” garbage. Please point to specific cases where anybody on the left is “denigrating military service,” or shut up about it if you can’t.

      <

      p>
      As for calling the military liars, there are documented examples of some members of the military lying, cheating, stealing, and committing other crimes, just as there are documented examples of civilians doing the same things. When a crime happens, should we avoid pointing it out just because the perpetrator happens to be in the military?

      <

      p>
      However, unlike many conservatives, people on the left do not tend to generalize based on a few examples. Some liars in the military do not make the military liars. Individual accountability is supposed to be sacrosanct to conservatives, but you seem unfamiliar with the concept.

      <

      p>
      Military leadership, much like the current administration’s civilian leadership, frequently lie. Lots of documented cases of that, too. I wouldn’t condemn the entire military based on that, however, and I don’t know a liberal who would.

      <

      p>
      So again, provide examples, or shut up about the “military-bashing liberals” chestnut.

        • Those people, by their own description, weren’t protesting the existence of the military, but a misleading recruitment effort:

          <

          p>

          Protesters spoke out against the attempts to entice students to join the army, by making it look fun by creating something of a fair on the Common–when those who joined the army would most likely to be sent to kill and possibly be killed in pointless, bloody wars.

          <

          p>
          Perhaps you’ve forgotten last year when the military itself suspended recruitments due to widespread scandals:

          <

          p>

          CBS/AP) The Army suspended recruiting efforts Friday after reported excesses by recruiters trying to make up for a shortfall in new soldiers.

          The one-day suspension was to allow commanders to emphasize ethical conduct and “refocus our entire force on who we are as an institution,” said Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, the chief of Army recruiting, to reporters at the Pentagon.

          ….

          CBS News has reported that from asking teens to lie to their parents to guiding them through duping the drug-test system and forging documents, recruiters will go to many lengths to get young people to enlist. One Houston-area recruiter was caught on tape threatening jail time if an applicant didn’t keep his appointment.

            • You said this: “Subtle distinctions such as that are missed. “

              <

              p>
              Now who’s dissing members of the military? You’re saying that people in the military are so stupid that they don’t get the difference between disliking the military’s misleading recruiting techniques and disliking the military?

              <

              p>
              Would they also miss the distinction between liking a banana cream pie and disliking a banana cream pie in the face?

              <

              p>
              I think members of the military are smarter than you give them credit for.

              • Would they also miss the distinction between liking a banana cream pie and disliking a banana cream pie in the face?

          • …One of the things that many people pass over is what percentage of people who are recruited are actually allowed to stay in the military after basic training.  There really is a bit of a difference between the two figures.

      • On this board, we had lightiris and others doing just this with respect to on-campus recruiters.

      • from closer to home – especially this paragraph –

        <

        p>

        <

        blockquote>We don’t have very many takers at our school.  Very few choose the military, but there are a few hard-core types whose views can’t be swayed.  I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve had with some of those kids in other classes.  They just don’t get it.  Aaach.  Well, if nothing else, this particular classroom will sally forth knowing full well what the War Gig is all about.  And they’ll do so with their limbs, their craniums, their gonads, and their psyches intact.  and this link –  http://www.bluemassg…

        <

        p>
        If you like, I can provide other examples as well.

        <

        p>
        Now – I would prefer it if you would just ask for citations instead of telling me to ‘shut up’.

        <

        p>
        And please, provide your documented citations of the military lying, along with your citations of military leadership lying.

        • Stop pretending that disliking a pattern of misleading recruitment programs is the same as disliking the military. They’re not the same, and repeating it won’t convince anyone.

          <

          p>
          As for examples of military leadership lying, try the circumstances around Pat Tillman’s death. They originally claimed it was due to enemy fire so they could use it for propaganda purposes. See this link for details. And do you remember Jessica Lynch, and the leadership’s lies about that case?

          <

          p>
          For examples of individual members of the military lying, see this link. Someone in the military was lying, since they can’t agree on a story, but it’s unclear exactly who.

          <

          p>
          There are many other examples, but I have a day job.

          <

          p>
          And I didn’t tell you to shut up in general… I said to provide examples of your baseless claims, or stop making them (shut up about them). You haven’t provided any examples of liberals hating the military, so I’m hoping you’ll stop saying it. I’m not confident you will, however.

        • You have taken my comments about the myth of war that is peddled openly and freely by the media, the military, and society in general and turned that into some sort of hatred for the military?  Are you for real? 

          <

          p>
          I’m sorry, but how is it you feel authoritative enough to claim to know what I think of the MILITARY–not this war, not recruiting practices, not the abuse of the veterans by this Administration?  Anyone with half a brain can read my comments on that thread and discern, if they read carefully and closely, that my negative comments are specifically related to the military’s desire, at great personal cost to thousands of young men and women, to preserve an image that has nothing to do with reality. 

          <

          p>
          You have no idea what I think of the military.  At all.  Don’t selectively quote my words about a particular issue and then use them to suit your own self-centered and self-serving rhetorical purposes.  That’s just wrong. 

          <

          p>
          You have demonstrated a propensity to extrapolate WILDLY on what people post here.  You attribute opinions to people based on your world view and you really should stop. 

          • No, none of us have any idea what your ideas on the value of a military career are.  We know that, to you’re credit, you are a veteran and a teacher, and that you keep within your professional boundaries when it comes to this particular issue.  OK.

            <

            p>
            But your “Arrgh” paragraph from yesterday, quoted above implies that your view of the military is rather on the negative side, and your later posts seem to indicate that you, within professional boundaries, will do whatever you can to cause your students to choose something else.  That may not be what you meant to imply, but we don’t know you or what you meant. Maybe you were fired up about the video, or whatever.  We only know what you write on here, and the inference drawn by PP simply isn’t an unfair one.

        • Well, duh. Of course I don’t bother asking for citations when I recognize the truth of what someone’s saying. I ask for citations when I think the poster is full of crap (as in your original post), or in other cases where the post does not appear to agree with reality.

          <

          p>
          Are you saying that’s somehow unusual? Or are you asking yet another disingenuous question to try to suggest I’m being unreasonable?

      • Try checking out the discussion about what a few BMG posters are saying about every Catholic (at least every Catholic Bishop) on the thread.  Talk about generalizing based on a few bad apples.  Its not only the right that is guilty of this.

        • I do hope people will read what is read in that other thread, and learn that the posters you disagree with can actually distinguish between the RCC machine and the laity.

          <

          p>
          In the mean time, witness a little love from a RCC priest to his parishoners.

          • I’m saddened that a priest would do that, but how many gay couples attend Mass each week here in Massachusetts?  That story made the papers because it was the exception, not the norm.

            <

            p>
            Again, to reiterate my point, the fact that you would try and distinguish between  the “machine” and the laity shows that the left is just as guilty of generalizing based on a few bad apples.  You are throwing this priest in Wyoming into the machine.  What about the priest that publicly supported Marian Walsh specifically because of her stance on gay marriage?  Then, you say there is the laity on the other hand.  Isn’t the former head of Catholic Citizenship who allegedly shoved a protester also a member of the laity?  The clergy and the laity are not two homogeneous and opposing groups.

            • of course there are some good clergy and some bad laity.  but never forget that the pope sets the tone & lays down the law (lots of church law has nothing to do with the bible, i’m sure you know), and by and large the clergy toe the line.  when the pope calls a whole class of people “disordered” and then his clergy just follow along, largely without question, it doesn;t leave one feeling too warm and fussy about the whole system, you know?

              • You lumped them all in together.  I called you on it.  Its not baiting.  I’m glad you recognize that like anything else, there is good and bad.

                • show me.  who among the clergy have stood up, preached loudly and widely full love and acceptance for gays as whole human beings?  a few, i know there are a few good men out there.  bu they don’t survive.  they get shot down, metaphorically, and they shut up, never to peep publicly again.  that’s unconditional love for ya.  at best, they usually end up doing the “we love you, you unrepentent sinner” schtick.

                  <

                  p>
                  regarding jesuit outposts:  you won’t see that kind of questioning and scholarship enacted in the local parishes, for reasons mentioned above.  that is, not if it conflicts with the hierarchy’s views on something they think is important, like gay people having civil parity or people using condoms to reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancies and STDs.  and you may have missed this, but there is an anti-gay purge underway at the seminaries.  you think that wont have a chilling effect on questioning and ACTING in unauthorised areas?

    • I must join the choir and take you to task on that statement Peter.  I know many professional educators who have served, have family members serving and support the military.  If we want to discuss whether the Commander in Chief is a liar [http://www.bushwatch…], then we should probably start a new post.

    • And if you have liberals, especially teachers, constantly denigrating military service and calling the miltary liars – how can you be surprised if the Armed Serices as a whole have become more conservative and less representative of society as a whole? 

      <

      p>
      are an ass.  How many years have YOU served in Honor Guard at Mount Auburn Cemetary on Memorial Day?  How many?  Oh yes, that’d be none, nada, zip. 

      <

      p>
      Your willful distortion of my words, opinions, and sentiments is offensive in the extreme.  As I said below, you have no idea whatsoever of my opinions of the military in general.  None.  Nada.  Zip. 

      <

      p>
      It must be heavenly to live in your simplistic, black-and-white world.  How lucky for you that you never have to actually step out of it. 

        • But as long as we are collecting biographical details, do you mean to say that you are a veteran?  I’m just pleased to read any opinions of conservatives with actual military service on the blog.  I find that militaristic blustering from uber-patriotic conservatives with no actual military record increases the signal/noise ratio as much as un-nuanced so-called-pacifist rants from the left.

        • Then we’ve probably marched together many times in the same parades and observances.  Can’t tell you how many soldier/veteran occasions I’ve volunteered my time and talent for – too numberous to count.  See, I am a gay liberal who chose not to serve in the military.  But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect and value the decision soldiers past and present make to be there for the nation when called up.  That their trust in the country using them wisely has been violated is a disgrace, but not a disgrace on them.  It is a disgrace on the Bush administration.  I can see the difference.  Apparently you can’t.  Sad that you think we liberals don’t love or respect our soldiers.  It says a lot about you and nothing about me.

          • I dropped ROTC when I was a freshman in college (1967, 17 yrs old) after I figured that it was nothing more than a marching class, and, from my Civil Air Patrol training, it was clear that I could march better than any of the others.

            <

            p>
            I got a nice pair of shoes out of it, though.  For free.

            <

            p>
            No joke.

            <

            p>
            It was well known (as I discovered later) that ROTC was little more than “beer blasts on Friday night.”  Sorry I missed out.  Not really.

        • As has been pointed out many times, not using swears is not the same thing as civil discourse.  PP distorts, dissembles, and bullies, then turns around and claims the evil liberals are picking on her.

          <

          p>
          Not that swearing at people is particularly constructive.  just that I fully understand the frustration.

          • but the presence of a personal attack certainly shows civil discourse is not to be found. You can disagree with PP’s arguments or methods without resorting to name calling.

            • PP routinely slings insults, personal attacks, and misinformation.  That she just doesn’t use swears doesn’t make it civil discourse.

        • …Where was the swearing?  Referring to someone as an ass is associating them with a donkey.  That’s not a swear term–it’s a descriptive one.  You know, like, hit the donkey between its eyes with a two-by-four. 

          <

          p>
          That kind of donkey.

            • …although I’m gay, I have no problem with tits.

              <

              p>
              Maybe it’s because guys have them, too.  And, quite frankly, I find “full figured girls” particularly fun to have around.  And I mean females.

      • I said that integration worked out, and the increasing presence of women in combat roles makes any argument against gays less compelling.

        <

        p>
        What started the problem was my asking why you were surprised when the military as a form of service has been denigrated and devalued for three decades – who EXCEPT extreme conservatives would you expect to find in postions of authority?

        <

        p>
        For the record, I do NOT oppose gays in the military and have never said so, here or elsewhere.

        <

        p>
        What seems to be lacking is an understanding of why Curtis LeMay types predominate in military authority after kids are told that soldiers are lying butchers you don’t want to go near them, and they are harassed in the part of the country when they want to join.  And this is NOT an Iraq problem – it has been a problem for over 25 years, in war and peace.

            • From Raj –

              <

              p>

              Pace is an idiot, of course, but it should be recognized that… (5.00 / 1) 
              …the US military has become dominated by conservative evangelical Christians http://www.salon.com…. so Pace’s comment isn’t a surprise.

               

              <

              p>
              You had responded to this youself.

              <

              p>
              And again – who else would you realisticly expect to find there, if his premise is true (and it WAS in Salon, after all).

              • Just because there may be many evangelicals in the military does not mean that they can conduct the military according to evangelical sensibilities.  the US military is not the military of god.  sorry, it’s just not.  Those serving know that.  The ones who forget, like Pace, must be reminded that they are there to uphold the Constitution, not their “upbringing”.

              • this isn’t a widely-reported story?

                <

                p>
                Are you feigning ignorance that Air Force officials were forced to announce a public investigation of this problem in the Academy?

                <

                p>
                Are you falsely claiming that this Crusader ethos isn’t making news around the world?

                <

                p>
                Net it out for us, Peter:

                <

                p>
                Are you lying and insinuating that the growing influence of evangelicals in the Armed Services is just liberal propaganda?

                <

                p>
                Yes or no?

    • Peter,

      <

      p>
      You are providing facts and reality to an arguemnet that revolves around what’s politically correct and to an audience that probably hasn’t spend much time at Iwo Jima, Valley Forge, Trenton, Yorktown, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, The Marne, Normandy, The Bulge, Khe Sanh, Hue, Fallujah, Najaf etc.

      <

      p>
      There were some pretty vigorous war protesters/anti draft
      protesters in New York City during the Civil War, I wonder where a number of American citizens would be today if Jefferson Davis and his pals had prevailed? Oh , but that was then and this is now. I bet those draft dodgers/resisters in 1865 thought the Civil War was unjust. Why were we fighting? 

      • present at Iwo Jima, Valley Forge, Trenton, Yorktown, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, The Marne, Normandy, The Bulge, Khe Sanh, Hue, Fallujah, Najaf etc.!

        <

        p>
        Please do tell us of your personal experiences in all those places!

        <

        p>
        Thanks MCRD for the tip!

  4. Because that’s sodomy in the US Mil, and worth five years.  Article 125.

    <

    p>
    So I wonder if anyone asked General Pace if his wife has ever given him a hummer, or if that too is “immoral.”

Archives