(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]

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.