(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

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.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

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.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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