Tuesday, March 13, 2007

TOPIC: Gay Advocacy Group Wants Apology From Pentagon Top General After Homosexuality Comment
Source: FOXNews.com
A gay advocacy group Tuesday demanded an apology from the Pentagon's top general for calling homosexuality immoral. In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace had likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site. The group has represented some service members dismissed from the military for their sexual orientation.
Pace, chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his remarks in an interview Monday with the Chicago Tribune. He was responding to a question about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don't engage in homosexual acts. Pace said he supports the policy, which prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation. Over the years thousands have been dismissed under this policy, signed into law by [former] President Clinton in 1994. "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in the interview. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."
Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing. "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 was quoted as saying.
The newspaper said Pace 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 Sope-Bocks: I applaud General Peter Pace for taking the correct stand on this matter. His comments are right on target. There is NO REASON for him to apologize to anyone. His personal beliefs are his own and NO ONE need apologize for their personal beliefs. While I agree that he should be loving and respectful in his statements and (more importantly) actions, being forced to accept and celebrate the choice of homosexual behavior is NOT something anyone should be confronted with -- military or civilian.
These gay advocacy groups need to sit down and shut up! There is NOTHING "outrageous" or "insensitive" in what General Pace said in the interview. I listened to part of his comments. He was soft-spoken and respectful, but also firm in his resolve. Pace answered one question with a very straightforward and truthful answer, "
The US Military’s mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence, cooperation amongst its members, and the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence and therefore is not supported within the US military. I’ll leave it at that."
Homosexuality *is* an immoral act. It is NOT natural, normal or moral. The lifestyle choice is rife with promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity -- all matters that point to trust, confidence and cooperation. General Pace should be applauded for standing his ground and speaking the truth.
I, personally, plan to be active in the fight against these homosexual advocacy groups as they seek to villainize General Pace. Here's hoping you will join the fight as well. It's high time conservatives (especially Christians) stand up for our beliefs and convictions.

10 comments:

Reign of Reason said...

Interesting... you appear to have a dearth of facts:

"It is NOT natural, normal or moral."

Natural: many species exhibit homosexual behavior. Not simply "one time mistakes" as some fundi's like to call it; but long term same-sex pair bonding.

Normal: If, by normal, you mean some type of statistical average, I agree -- homosexual is not the norm, but it demonstrated by small percentages of most higher-species. In that sense it is perfectly normal... as it occurs in nature.

Moral: Either you (or I?) don't understand "morality" ... For me, the morality of an action has to do with it's ability to cause suffering. The actions of consenting, homosexual adults has nothing to do with morality. However, if you believe take biblical non-sense as a baseline (which I find impossible having read it thru) you can justify an odd bunch of behaviors that rational people would consider immoral (e.g. - slavery, sexual slavery, murder, etc.)

Extending the concept of morality to private and personal behavior isn't "moral" -- its called tyranny.

Andy said...

What makes you so certain that homosexuality is a choice? Did you choose to be heterosexual? Are you sexually attracted to men and have made a conscious, moral choice to lead a heterosexual lifestyle? Or, are you just, in fact, straight? And if that's the case, isn't it possible that some people are simply not straight?

Why is homosexuality immoral? Don't just respond with "The Bible says so," because I am a regular chuch-going Christian and I have every confidence I can win that argument. Don't try to tell me that it's immoral -- or incompatible with military service -- because being gay somehow "means" promiscuity and infidelity, as you suggested on my blog. Nearly half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce in this country and, as Jon Stewart put it, they don't end in "gayness." Heterosexuals clearly don't have any kind of lock on moral sexual behavior, monogamy or commitment. There are lawsuits going on all over the country because committed same-sex couples are willing to go to all that trouble because they want their relationship publicly declared and legally binding.

I agree, General Pace should not have to apologize for his personal views on whether homosexuality is moral or not. I will not apologize for mine. But as far as official US policy goes, one person's moral opinion is insufficient. This is a civil rights issue, and needs to be grounded in fact. And the facts -- as clearly illustrated by Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva -- are that gay and lesbian currently and have always served competently and heroically in the US armed forces. There is no legitimate reason not to allow gay and lesbian Americans the opportunity to serve their country, to volunteer to risk life and limb -- as many of them have already done.

Charlie said...

Reign,
First, THANK YOU for your comments. I respect your opinion, but see it's flawed logic based on popular cultural mores.

Natural: Sorry, but the oft quoted research that showed animal behavior to be homosexual was conducted by a homosexual activist. His research matches his own pre-conceived notions, not science.

Normal: First, see above. Your facts are not correct. Second, removing God's morality from the picture, and going with an evolutionary concept, homosexuality cannot be normal. It has to be a deviant trait. Survival of the fittest and natural selection specifically rule out homosexuality as a norm as homosexuality would cause certain distinction of a species. Sorry, but your arguments just don't hold an ounce of water.

Moral: The first problem is that you nor I define morality. Only the Creator can define morality. As such, when He says that homosexuality is immoral, that is the truth. No if's, ands or buts.

Imposing an immoral chosen sexual behavior on a citizenry is not a right, but a travesty.

Charlie said...

Andy,
I appreciate that you took the time to write comments on The Sope-Bocks. I'm glad to offer a reply.

What makes me so certain that homosexuality is a choice? First, there is no good evidence that it is anything other than a choice. Visit NARTH.org and do some reading. The facts are there. BTW, before homosexuality became a politically correct popular notion among leftists and liberals, the AMA, APA and ALL other medical establishments' research showed homosexuality as a "deviant" behavior (primarily one of choice). Second, your logic of anyone's choice to be heterosexual is a moot point. We don't choose to breathe, live, grow hair or excrete sweat. Those are all normal parts of who and what we are as human beings.

Though some people may have a predacation [sp] towards homosexuality, there is still the choice of acting on that temptation. This is the same decision that people who are drawn to fire, thievery or some other "deviant" behavior face. The individual makes the choice to act or not.

Andy, I'm sorry -- but the Bible DOES say so. And I'll gladly debate you or anyone else on the topic any day. BTW, regular church attendance doesn't make one a Christian any more than hanging around a hospital makes one a surgeon. Being a Christian comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and Him alone. I trust you understand my point -- and don't think I'm challenging your salvation statement.
I will challenge you, as a Christian, to provide me with ONE iota of biblical evidence that shows that homosexuality is acceptable to God.

Homosexuality is immoral because God said it is immoral -- plain and simple. Whether we like it or not... whether we believe it or not... whether we admit it or not... God is the Creator and HE is the one who made the rules. As such, when He says that homosexuality is immoral, it is the factual and eternal truth, period.
If you'd rather approach the idea from a Godless POV, see my reply to Reign above. Since there is no need for morality without God, the question would then become, is homosexuality a norm. The answer is NO. Evolution would preclude homosexuality as being a normal part of any species. It would be a mutation or deviation that would be harmful to the propogation and proliferation of the species.

Sorry, but the majority of homosexual activism towards redefining marriage is more about money and benfits -- and MUCH less about binding love. I can assure you of that fact.

I'm glad we do agree on the matter that General Pace should not apologize for his personal beliefs. Your agreement with that fact is rare among those who support homosexuality. The vast majority want to squash ALL speech that challenges them and their choice of sexual behavior (you know, that sounds insane to me).
Fortunately for General Pace and the entire armed forces entity, one person's opinion is NOT the deciding factor. Research and experience has shown that the lifestyle of homosexuality is not conducive to how a military life works. While some men and women can balance both their sexual choices and their career in the military, opening the flood gates would cause MANY problems that are 1000% politically incorrect to mention.

Reign of Reason said...

I suppose I'm beating my head against a wall, but not all research into animal behavior was conducted by "homosexuals" ... that conclusion is simply wrong.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Homosexuality has been demonstrated in everything from insects to primates... I note you try to use an evolutionary argument to refute the behavior: interesting -- science (natural selection) is of use when it helps make your point... You take a bite of the pie, but apparently denounce the recipe that baked it...

You claim morality comes from God ... ok - let's pretend it does. But who's god? Yours??? Islams god?? Hindu's??? Even if I grant your precept the premise of this nation is that we are free of other people's religious beliefs: your religion should not restrict my freedom. -- if I want to "love" Jim that cannot have a bearing on my rights as a citizen: again, to believe otherwise to to admit tyranny (read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists).

As for "research and experience" -- again, where do you look for your data?

The UK, Israel and MANY European nations as well as Australia have gay military members... I am a military officer... I have worked with gay servicemen from these nations. To believe -- out of hand -- that an INDIVIDUAL is somehow divisive because of who he/she is attracted to is the definition of bigotry. Sorry but it is.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

You say:

I, personally, plan to be active in the fight against these homosexual advocacy groups as they seek to villainize General Pace. Here's hoping you will join the fight as well. It's high time conservatives (especially Christians) stand up for our beliefs and convictions.

With all due respect, you need to get a hobby. General Pace is a big boy, indeed a military man, and can handle this situation quite well on his own.

And, I really have no idea how defending Pace represents standing up for your beliefs. Far more convincing, along the Jesus model, is to walk the walk. If you think homosexuality is immoral, don't be gay. It is none of your business if anyone else is or if others think it's right or wrong. You have your relationship with god and so does everyone else. If I remember correctly, under Christian doctrine, only a couple hundred thousand people get an eternal spot in heaven. Be happy with the assurance that you will be one of those and let everyone else work on earning their spots.

Charlie said...

Reign,
I'm glad to further comment on your posts to my blog...

First, I didn't say that *all* research into animal behavior was conducted by homosexuals. However, it is fact that the primary "research" quoted by activists was conducted by Dean Hammer and others like him. BTW, quoting the very left-leaning NGS is comical. They are about as credible as Hammer.

You wrote "I note you try to use an evolutionary argument to refute the behavior: interesting -- science (natural selection) is of use when it helps make your point... You take a bite of the pie, but apparently denounce the recipe that baked it..."

I'm sure you're simply trying to take a jab at me in stating this -- since you should be smart enough to know that I was using a point of reference that you would understand (evolution) to prove a point. I don't use evolution to debate on a normal basis as it is a religion that I don't have enough faith to subscribe to.

You asked: "Who's God?" The one and only true and living God. The God of the Holy Bible. There is only one true God -- the Creator and author of the universe, mankind and even those little insects you claim to be homosexuals by nature.

You wrote, "...the premise of this nation is that we are free of other people's religious beliefs"
Where do you derive that notion? The founders and their writings, including Jefferson's letter to Danbury, made it very clear that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values, the Bible and under the moral law of the Creator (aka GOD).
The founders said that we are all free to attend whatever church we want to attend, and that the gov't would not force us to join a state-run domination. However, imperical foundational documents show that the founders never intended for us to be free of ALL religion or from the moral law of God. It's obvious that you need to go back and do some historial research (such Faiths of Our Founding Fathers).

You added, "your religion should not restrict my freedom. -- if I want to "love" Jim that cannot have a bearing on my rights as a citizen: again, to believe otherwise to to admit tyranny"

My "religion" doesn't restrict anyone's freedom. God's law imposes morality on ALL people. We can choose to live by His law or against His law. Either way, the choice is ours. However, breaking God's law will have consequences (ever heard of AIDS, HPV & other STDs?)
Furthermore, your choice to "love" Jim doesn't have a bearing on your rights as a citizen. I don't know anyone who thinks it should. By the same token, your immoral choice to "love" Jim should not be elevated to a celebrated or special status that goes outside of the moral law of God -- and of the land. As you said, to believe otherwise is to admit tyranny - in this case the tyranny of a small group over the majority who are standing by the moral law established by the Creator.

Charlie said...

Insurgent wrote:
"With all due respect, you need to get a hobby. General Pace is a big boy, indeed a military man, and can handle this situation quite well on his own."

You're right -- but I'm not the only one who has commented. I wonder if you made this comment to everyone in the homosexual or liberal community. Or, are you just trying to get those whose opinions differ from your own to be quiet?

Insurgent added:
"If you think homosexuality is immoral, don't be gay. It is none of your business if anyone else is or if others think it's right or wrong."
Really? So why are you commenting on my blog posts? If I use your logic (which is absurd), then I could tell you it's none of your business what I comment on or what I think.
Besides, speaking out on evil is not only my right, but the responsibility of thinking Christians. BTW, do you go to environmentalists' blogs and tell them it's none of their business what happens to the Earth? After all, they seem to think it's immoral to drive SUVs and cut down trees. But, is that really any of their business?


Insurgent added:
"If I remember correctly, under Christian doctrine, only a couple hundred thousand people get an eternal spot in heaven. Be happy with the assurance that you will be one of those and let everyone else work on earning their spots."
You don't remember correctly because there is NOTHING in the Christian faith that even comes close to the "doctrine" you quote.

Sorry, but walking away from what I know to be wrong without calling it wrong and working to help make things right is irresponsible.

I doubt you practice what you are preaching to me in your work, school or daily life. If you did, then NOTHING would bother you and ANYTHING that happened would be acceptable. After all, others can think/believe what they wish and you shouldn't say or do anything about it. It's their right -- according to your logic.

George said...

Just in case you missed my response to your comment on my blog:

Thanks, CharlieJ. Obviously, you’ve made my point: The more things change, the more they stay the same. And, indeed, who can argue with an AOL poll.

Obviously, also, you’ve made a syllogistically unsound argument: “The lifestyle choice is rife with promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity…” My partner and I will celebrate our 25th anniversary together this year. Nope, no “…promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity…” here. Just love, devotion, commitment. And, oh, by the way, did you read the part about my honorable service to my country in the U.S. Army? Maybe I ought to ask for that back. You know, just kinda say, Whoops! sorry guys, you can give those two years of my life back to me now, ’cause the folks over at AOL can’t be fooled with.

Incidentally, it’s a “life,” not a “lifestyle.”

I was proud to serve. I would do it again, in spite of General Pace and all the other “hate the sin, love the sinner” hypocrites whose demagoguery defines them.

Like I said, this is nothing new. The more things change…

Charlie said...

George,
I made my point, nor yours as they are totally different. BTW, the sarcasm regarding the AOL poll is well-noted. However, I would wager that you would laud the poll *IF* the votes had been in favor of your POV.

Congratulations on your 25 year relationship. BUT, your single relationship (which I doubt has been completely monogamous for a quarter of a century) is NOT the defining factor in the lifestyle choice of homosexuality. It is but one of thousands that statistically are rife with promiscuity and infidelity.

Furthermore, the fact that many young men (as studies have shown) who end up choosing the gay lifestyle were victims of adult homosexuals is proof enough to me that the lifestyle is also rife with predatorship. While you may be the exception, you are certainly NOT the rule. I wouldn't have posted what I wrote if I hadn't read the studies and articles on the topic myself.

Incidentally, it *IS* a lifestyle. It is a choice. It is NOT naturally inborn. It is not genetic. Therefore it is a chosen lifestyle.

Actually, this is one of the main problems I have with the homosexual agenda. If gays kept their choice in the bedroom and didn't try to teach it to our kids, force corporations to provide benefits for the poor health it causes and coerce the government into raising sexual behavior to a celebrated and protected status, I wouldn't be so vocal about my opposition to it. In fact, I kinda think most people who oppose homosexuality aren't so much against people making their own choices as they are being force-fed the idea of the lifestyle choice. [I'm sure you and some of your friends will find a neat way to twist what I just wrote into something it doesn't mean.]

For the record, I appreciate your service in the Armed Forces. THANK YOU for enlisting.