Pentagon Top General Expresses Regret, But Doesn't Apologize After Homosexuality Comm

[alphaman]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258466,00.html

[Tock]

Yawn . . . nothing new . . .

However, in the report I saw from the Associated Press, he said that homosexuality is just as bad as adultery, and that they discipline adulterers.

From my experience in the USAF, lots of married folks slip around on each other, but never have I ever heard of anyone getting in trouble for adultery.

I'm just surprised that the military would inject itself into this sort of personal thing . . . Sorta sounds like they're getting more and more like a Baptist Bible camp . . .

[DTBusta]

Like I said before...why should he say anything is Immoral...killing people isn't, specially for a "lie" or an extremely convenient"mistake"?...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp9XkmWOsgQ

[spywizard]

He has a right to his opinion..

and the military does court martial for adultry, and making false statements, and all sorts of issues

[Tock]

and the military does court martial for adultry

I'll bet the statistics on that would be interesting . . .

Seems to me that if they're into the "morality thing," they'd also be interested in doing something about "extramarital sex." Some folks consider that adultery, I dunno if the military does, but if it does, then there's an awful lot of military folks who could be prosecuted for that . . .

[Logan13]

I'll bet the statistics on that would be interesting . . .

Seems to me that if they're into the "morality thing," they'd also be interested in doing something about "extramarital sex." Some folks consider that adultery, I dunno if the military does, but if it does, then there's an awful lot of military folks who could be prosecuted for that . . .

there was an outcry just a few years ago when an enlisted person was found guilty (by military tribunal as is the law) of adultry and sent to military prison.

[Tock]

there was an outcry just a few years ago when an enlisted person was found guilty (by military tribunal as is the law) of adultry and sent to military prison.

Guess I missed that one. That's a good example of the government sticking its nose into things it has no business in.

A marriage contract is a civil agreement made between two people. Breaching this contract is not a criminal act in any of the 50 states, and there is no reason for any government agency, including the military, to make it one.
If either party to a marriage contract feels the other has defaulted on its terms, civil remedies are appropriate, and available.

In other words, let's get the government off of our backs . . . (is there a smilie for this?) and out of our bedrooms . . .

[Tock]

CNN article . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...tarygeneration

Old prejudice dishonors new military generation
Wed Mar 14, 6:46 AM ET

Prejudice should never be the basis for policy. But that is precisely how Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued the case for a continued ban on gays serving openly in the military.

In an interview Monday with the Chicago Tribune, Pace said he believes that homosexuality is immoral, like adultery. He gave a half-apology Tuesday - regretting that he had focused too much on "my personal moral views."


In an unintentional way, Pace might have done the nation a favor by revealing the ingrained anti-gay attitudes that have kept the anachronistic "don't ask, don't tell" policy in effect long after it should have been replaced by a ban on discrimination.


Under the 14-year-old policy, recruits aren't questioned about their sexual orientation (don't ask) but are discharged from the military if they engage in homosexual conduct or admit to being gay (don't tell). Since 1994, nearly 11,000 troops - the equivalent of an Army division - have been dismissed, including several Arabic or Farsi-speaking translators who are badly needed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


That makes no sense. When the policy was implemented, it was an uncomfortable compromise - President Clinton wanted gays to be allowed to serve openly, but he faced a backlash from Congress and from military officials. Today, with the military stretched thin and changed public attitudes, it's time to dump the policy and put anti-discrimination standards into place.


The old arguments - that gays serving openly could cause a breakdown in discipline or unit cohesion - have proved as baseless as the ban the military once had against blacks and whites serving in the same units.


Gays serve openly in the military in 23 of 26 NATO countries (the United States, Turkey and Portugal are the exceptions). In Britain, senior officers predicted dire consequences when its gay ban was lifted in 2000. Several officers resigned in protest. So what happened? The experience has been so successful that the British military now recruits gays and offers partner benefits.


In the USA, though Pace and other top brass harbor intolerance, rank and file troops are far more accepting. In a recent Zogby poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, 73% said they are comfortable in the presence of gays. U.S. public opinion is also solidly behind the idea of gays serving openly. A Harris poll this month found 55% in favor, up from 48% in 2000; a Pew Research Center survey last year found 60% in favor, up from 52% in 1994, with three-in-four support among those younger than 30.


In Congress, hearings are planned next month on a bill by Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., that would repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve without limits. (If they engaged in sexual harassment or misconduct, they would be punished just as heterosexual troops are.)


One of the scheduled witnesses is Eric Alva, the first U.S. Marine wounded in Iraq. Alva followed his father and grandfather into the military, losing a leg when he stepped on a land mine. He was honored with a Purple Heart and received a military discharge. But, like so many others, he could not fully savor his honor because was hiding his homosexuality. Last month, he decided to end the painful double life and begin a new fight.


Alva's service - not lingering prejudice - is a compelling guide for future policy.