iipm think tank
> Queer? Umm...er...well...uhh...
Daily Indian Media
4P's Business and Marketing
Business and Economy
The Daily Indian
The Sunday Indian
Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff says being gay is immoral; is he wrong, or is he horribly...right?
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in US Army, General Peter Pace’s most recent statement justifying continuance of the military ban on homosexuals has evoked tremendous criticism from various quarters, ironically resulting in his sticking stronger to his “personal stand” of labelling homosexuality as an “immoral act,” as he puts it. Pace (left) certainly has marked one of the significant signs of ever-present trends coming to the fore. In tune with the rising trend of religious orthodoxy in the country, these statements definitely have a linkage with the opposition to abortion and extreme adherence to Catholic orthodoxy.
Various so-called literates have feverishly argued that Pace’s statement is an exception to the growing mass acceptance of gay rights, which have now even evoked support from US Congress and even American Presidential campaigns. That argument, sadly (or fortunately, as many would say), is laughable! On the forefront of anti-gay documentation is Pentagon’s directive 1332.38, which deals with physical disability evaluation, and which includes homosexuality in a list of mental disorders! The various critics of Pace, and these literary masses, perhaps forget very easily that even the American military, on paper and without ambiguity, prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from serving in any of its wings.
It must be recalled out here – before liberal sycophantic Democrats cry hoarse over Republican conservatism – that even the much colourful Democrat President Bill Clinton (not a homosexual, at least as per the last certified and much publicized account of his below the belt exigencies) could not change such a policy and had to implement a “compromise measure” in 1993 as one of the “advance steps” for actually allowing homosexuals into the forces – and that is the ubiquitous ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. And what does this cryptic code statement mean? The policy simply requires that if any homosexual or bisexual works – or wishes to work – in the army, they can peacefully continue working, as long as they hide their sexual orientation and inclination. That’s the ‘Don’t Tell’ part. The ‘Don’t Ask’ remainder assures them that nobody’s going to investigate such tendencies.
Of course, the argument of Republicans being extremely and illogically conservative also holds water, if one considers Washington’s hard line on abortion, startlingly reflected in the US policy statement made on the 10th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration (containing the Platform For Action which was to be adopted by the national governments for improving the status of women). Suggesting sweeping changes that reflected refusal of American support to a specific international population project, the US official delegation had stated that “Washington would affirm its support to the Beijing Declaration only if the right to abortion was done away with.”
But then, proving one illogical stance, does not a liberal make, eh. Democrats have been waving out the Boston Globe opinion poll that showed that almost 80% of people polled in the US had no opposition to gay people joining the military. What Boston Globe could not reveal to us was whether the same people polled had no opposition to their sons or daughters becoming homosexuals. Well, if you think you accept homosexuality, why don’t you stop for a moment and ask yourself the same question?
Copyright @2010 iipm think tank. All rights reserved.