(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

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

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

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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."