| Tuesday, March 13, 2007 |
| An impolite question: don't ask, don't talk to the newspapers |
Does General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have the right to his own opinion about the morality or homosexuality, or adultery, for that matter? Pace so far has released a statement regretting that he aired his personal views in expressing support for the military's Don's Ask, Don't Tell policy on gays serving openly in the military, but not apologizing. First, what Pace said to get himself in so much hot water:
"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in the audio recording of the interview posted on the Tribune's Web site. "I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by a saying through our policies that it's 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," he said, according to the audio and a transcript released by his staff. One Chicago Trib reporter (the paper which broke the original story) takes on the topic.
...To me, the first test is whether there's a victim; whether the act causes significant harm to other people; kills, injures, takes advantage of or otherwise exploits or deprives them for no good purpose.
Such acts tend to be illegal -- murder, theft and so on. But certain legal, self-destructive acts -- gambling or drinking to such excess that you burden your family, friends and community -- are also arguably immoral in my view. Adultery. Lying to gain personal advantage. I will not name them all.
... It's immoral to have sex before marriage, some say, because acceptance of pre-marital sex weakens the bonds of family that ultimately hold society together.
Similarly, the non-scriptural argument I've heard saying homosexuality is immoral has to do with its biological purposelessness -- a version of the "what if everybody did it?" gambit. Homosexuality doesn't propagate the species and is therefore not constructive. If universally practiced, it would bring an end to humankind.
The same is true of celibacy, of course, though no one attacks that as immoral.
And the truth is that it will never be universally practiced and will never have a significant impact on the world's population. As is, homosexuality seems fairly benign to me -- not my thing, but not my business, either. That's a good argument, but I would throw in one caveat. Morality is a highly personal idea. What I might consider immoral, you might consider to be perfectly acceptable. It all depends on myriad factors, like upbringing, religious inculcation, etc. So it is possible for someone like Pace to have the personal opinion that homosexuality is immoral, without there being some larger imperative that he explain why it is so. On the question of how that morality is defined, for the religious person, it could be as simple as, "because the Bible proscribes against it." That may not wash with everyone, but it really doesn't have to.
Perhaps some people use the world "immoral" when they really mean "distasteful" -- I think a lot of heterosexuals, especially men, find the idea of homosexual sex to be ... well ... gross, and so they lump it in with immorality. And I think many religious people classify gay sex as immoral because in their view, it lures healthy males away from the procreative life. And then there are the concerns that adult gay men tend to be attracted to very young, post-pubescent types, bringing them "into the lifestyle" in a way that many people consider to be immoral. (Ditto with gay rights groups that seek to organize very young, impressionable teens who may have an inclination that they are gay...)
That's the best I can do in answering the columnist's challenge. As for Pace, I think he's entitled to his opinion, and his statement regretting that he aired his personal views should suffice.
Meanwhile, Pace is getting criticism from the Hill, but the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is getting support from the Sec Def.
And Christian groups are rallying to Pace's side, unsurprisingly.
I wonder what wannabe commander in chief Giuliani thinks about the controversy...
Labels: peter pace; military; don't ask don't tell; gays; morality |
posted by JReid @ 3:09 PM   |
|
|
|
|
