Head of U.S. armed forces says homosexual acts are immoral

Quoted in the Telegraph (which incorrectly describes him as an army general), Marine general and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace has told the Chicago Tribune:

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.

“I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way.

“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of homosexual 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.”

Howard Sutherland comments:

This is a welcome change from the Pace I remember: weeping about his immigrant grandparents into the microphone on national television as he disgracefully shilled for President Bush’s illegal alien amnesty/”guest” worker Destroy-America-Quick Plan. Maybe he has remembered that he is a United States Marine and not a GOP hack. It is very hard to remember the last time a four star officer on active duty had the balls to buck the zeitgeist in public. I wonder how long he’ll keep his job…

LA writes:

I’m glad Pace said this. It’s a slap at the liberal orthodoxy. But it’s not a strong position that can withstand challenge from the left. He says homosexual acts are immoral and he compares them to adultery. On what ground? What about sexual acts between an unmarried man and woman? Are they immoral too? He doesn’t say that. In fact, the U.S. military of which Pace is the highest officer not only approves sexual relations between unmarried men and women, it provides a vast establishment to care for the children born of those non-marital unions. A sexually liberated military that integrates women with men in the same units and encourages and licenses sexual behavior between them is not on strong ground in saying that sexual acts between two people of the same sex are immoral. The same goes for our society as a whole, which trumpets non-marital relationships and normalizes non-marital families. It is an observed fact, in every modern society, that homosexual liberation follows heterosexual liberation as the night follows the day. Therefore the only way society can put the genie of homosexual liberation back in the bottle is to abandon heterosexual liberation and return to traditional morality.

Mr. Sutherland replies:

All true. Maybe Pace has just found his unprincipled exception.

The U.S. armed forces today are a social disaster: encouraging unmarried unions then providing the abortions and day-care that follow (take your pick, today’s kinder, gentler military isn’t going to impose any “value judgments”); separating young, often single, mothers from their infants so they can deploy on fools’ errands to places like Iraq; winking at lesbianism since WWII and now at male inversion as well; hiring Latin American mercenaries then granting them instant U.S. citizenship. Our armed forces, in the social arena, are a greater threat to us than to Arab insurgents.

Nevertheless, this is very welcome. If Pace says too much about the things I listed above, he is calling into question the whole structure of the armed forces as they are now. I can’t see him, or anyone else still on active duty, doing that. It will take civilian political leadership to do that.

Howard Sutherland continues:

The homosexualists are after him. No surprise there, but I thought this was troubling, if the cited poll is at all accurate:

John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

“These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers,” Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.

He also cited a new Zogby poll, commissioned by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, of 545 U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three quarters said they were comfortable around gay men and lesbians; 37 percent opposed allowing gays to serve openly; 26 percent said they should be allowed, and 37 percent were unsure or neutral.

I wonder what axe Shalikashvili is grinding; does he have a homosexual relative who wants to go to West Point or something?

David H. writes:

Mr. Sutherland wrote:

“I wonder what axe Shalikashvili is grinding; does he have a homosexual relative who wants to go to West Point or something?”

I’d guess it’s even worse—as a loyal Clinton appointment, and as the individual in (at least nominal; he did not protest or resign) charge of the intervention in the Balkans (the war to make Yugoslavia safe for Al Qaeda), he is clearly a liberal. And now, in private life, without even the minimal restraints of the thoroughly liberalized and feminized military, he can unleash his inanity without temperance.

An examination of his profile at wikipedia reveals this gem:

“He was an advisor to John Kerry’s campaign for president in 2004…”

A reader who calls herself Lady Lexington writes:

The sexual revolution is one of the worse things that has happened to this country. Fornication (which is sex outside of marriage) has become commonplace and no cause for shame. I see homosexuality as the same thing. I was surprised the other day when a couple in my church (a small traditional Anglo-Catholic church) announced their marriage. Everyone was happy. Here I am horrified because I realize they have a small one and half year old daughter and they are living together coming to church. And the priest is letting them partake of the body of Christ even though they are living in sin. Shakes head….

Until as a culture we return to traditional morals (no sex except between married coupled) we are lost.

No one realizes anymore that sex between married couple is a sacrament how so very sad.

Until we as a culture start condemning causal sex between heterosexual couples I don’t think we have a leg to stand on when we condemn homosexuality.

I asked Lady L. to clarify the nature of this couple—heterosexual, homosexual?—and she replied:

Oh I am sorry it is a man and woman who had their baby before getting married. My priest wouldn’t let a homosexual in the door. I would of course church is where sinners belong except of course I would expect them to stop their sinning (fornication)….

I guess I didn’t make myself clear. I find the acceptance of an unmarried heterosexual couple going to mass and being allowed to partake of the sacraments just as shocking as if a same sex couple did it. It is still fornication, a sin. There was a time when a couple would be ashamed to come to the altar while publicly sinning.

Sigh I think I was born in the wrong century … and I’m not that old 55 so I remember the sexual revolution of the 60’s and 70’s.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 13, 2007 10:31 AM | Send