sophiaserpentia | (no subject)

So, queer activists are demanding that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, apologize for telling the media that he believes homosexuality is as immoral as adultery and therefore the military should not condone it.

But, i don't get the emphasis on demanding an apology. Apology is irrelevant; especially if it comes after widespread heckling, as one then doubts whether it reflects any real contrition.

Besides, if i state publically that i believe militarism is immoral and that General Pace, as a primary proponent of state-sanctioned violence, is therefore an immoral person, am i required to apologize for that?

Apology is irrelevant. What matters is whether a person is open to question their views after connecting on a human level with other people. I'm willing to break bread with a few soldiers and may revisit my opinion on militarism after hearing them out. Is General Pace willing to do the same with a few gay and lesbian folks? THAT's what they should be asking for.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I disagree. Dialog is useless with someone who believes you are inherently evil, and General Pace believes this about gay and lesbian people, even if they are soldiers in his own army.

What they should be doing, IMO, is calling for his dismissal. Clearly he is unable to move past his own prejudices to do what is best for the US military. Therefore he is incompetent and should be fired.

I could understand and sympathize with demands for his ouster too; in that case, apology is still irrelevant.

Yes, I agree. All you might get from him is a completely insincere apology coerced out of him to save his ass politically.
Of course, some might see something like that as a show of dominance by the GLBT movement, and a sign that we are not to be disregarded as a political force. It all depends on whether you are looking at this from a reality based perspective or as a political game.
I, of course, have very mixed feelings about the military in general. So I tend not to get so up in arms about this.

Yeah, i know what you mean, i often wonder, "Why the heck are gay people fighting to work there?"

But, i'm not really thinking of 'dialog' when i say something like, "Let's break bread." I'm convinced of the utter futility of dialog. I do think, however, there is some hope that when people of different stripes spend time around each other in a very mundane capacity, maybe especially if they do NOT try to 'dialog,' they might be able to see the humanity in one another. And that, at least, would be something.

I think it's hopeless. They don't even think of us as human. They are quite willing to make a show of sitting and breaking bread with us for the cameras in order to prove they are "making an effort", while privately thinking we are disgusting slime that should be wiped out. Then they will turn around and stab us in the back. This is not hyperbole or an exagerration. You know this.

It's definitely a risk for someone to put themselves out there like that, but once in a while, it does make a difference.

I can see it either way. People have a tendency to compartmentalize conflicting (cognitive dissonance) data. So Dick and Lynne Cheney can happily welcome the news that their lesbian daughter and her partner are going to make them grandparents, while continuing to legislate and agitate against basic political and social rights for homosexual citizens. People like that really, truly don't seem to see that their views are in conflict.

Well, i haven't watched him closely or anything, but the perception i have, as far as i'm aware, the one thing i can give Dick Cheney credit for is that he doesn't go around making a lot of statements about how bad homosexuality is. He's generally pretty quiet on the topic.

It wasn't too long ago that you would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't think we were inherently evil. That couldn't have changed without dialog convincing people otherwise. True, we haven't yet "won", but dialog has been and is far from useless.

I like the fact that he put his cards on the table rather than hiding behind old rhetoric about morale, efficiency, and showers. Instead of wasting time fighting ghost issues, we can directly focus at the heart of the matter – hatred and aggressive moral policing.

He'll probably end up issuing the standard non-apology, "I apologize that some were offended by remarks.".

Well, we got an "I regret talking about my personal views more than military policy," which at least has more substance than "I'm sorry some were offended."

I'm wondering where all the adulterers are on this. I mean, he slammed them too. You'd think the entire Republican Party would be pissed at him. ;)

Maybe we can get a statement from Rudy Giuliani on that.

I imagine that statement would sound rather like, "Uh, hmm, hem, haw. Look, it's Britney Spears!" ::runs away::

Or...."Look, we caught a terrist! We caught a terrist!"

When I read Pace's statement, I was reminded of the song Alice's Restaurant, in which Arlo is given a 4-F because he is not moral enough to kill women and children. Not much has changed since Viet Nam, other than the draft.

It boggles my mind that anyone (whether gay or not) would volunteer in the armed forces during a nasty dirty imperialist war