Marine General Peter Pace recently publicly stated his perspectives on what he deems to be moral versus immoral behavior:
Speaking about the military’s ban on homosexuals serving openly, Pace told the Chicago Tribune on March 12 that “homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and…we should not condone immoral acts.” He compared homosexual behavior to adultery, which is also prohibited by the military.
General Pace declared that he regards adultery and homosexuality to be immoral behaviors. Homosexuals and Liberals everywhere responded with upset.
The criticism that I’ve heard and read in the last two days in response to General Pace’s statements is generally characterised as this: “just because a person is homosexual doesn’t mean they’re immoral,” or, as also said by homosexual Talking Heads in the media today and yesterday, “homosexuality doesn’t affect a person’s morality.”
And, predictably, there has been the condemnation of General Pace and Pace’s moral code from homosexual activists in the media.
Moreover, predictably, the Democrats and homosexual activists clambored onto this issue and we hear today from the likes of Democrat Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama after, it’s said, they both responded to these pressuring groups. Which begs the question what Hillary and Obama actually believe — what’s their morality — versus how they operate poltically based upon “interest group” pressures, as in, it appears Hillary and Obama are servicing the politics and not the issue.
Clinton said, “I don’t believe homosexuality is immoral.”
Senator Barack Obama was asked the same question three times on Wednesday and sidestepped it, according to an article in Newsday. A spokesman for Sen. Obama later said that the senator disagrees with General Pace’s comments and believes that homosexuality is not immoral.
I haven’t yet read what other Democrat candidate, John Edwards, may have to say about this but I don’t anticipate he’s going to go out on any limb and actually support a moral position, given his two competitors’-peer-politicos’ having admitted that they disagree with what God declares to be “abominable” (which is what He declares about homosexuality, just part of what’s said in the Bible about it). The wording in the Holy Bible leaves little to interpretation when God declares a specific behavior “abominable.” You either take what He declares seriously and respect it, or, you don’t. If you don’t, then referring to yourself as “a Christian” as all three of these Democrats do (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards), then, is yet another lie from all three.
Most of us arrive at a point in our lives where we begin a process of formulating a moral code by which we live. Some individuals never do get to that point, I realize, but most conscionable persons experience the light going off in our minds and souls at some point where we recognize we are all individually answerable for ourselves, our actions and our decisions and we effort to organize a moral code to live by, even when it’s not popular or trendy to do so.
But a political party — by way of candidates and party edicts — declaring what people must or are required to define as moral (or not) for political motives — in this case, the “homosexual lobby” harasses and threatens harms upon those who do not or may not demonstratively align with their views, and, Liberal candidates, especially, bow down to these populist demands without regard for a defined and consistent moral code — isn’t politics, it’s debauchery.
Christians and Orthodox Jews, to name a few, believe in a moral position based upon theology that homosexuality is immoral. It’s immoral because God declares it so in the Bible, both the New and the Old Testament, respectively. That trumps populist, fluctuating beliefs as to what’s “O.K.” and trendy, what’s chosen, elected, fanciful and/or selected by who yells or threatens louder than whom.
And, homosexuality, despite the insistence by Socialist educational practices present today in several areas of our world, is not innate — individuals are not innately homosexual, are not “made that way” at conception or “appear that way” at birth. Homosexuality is not an issue of gender, it’s not a characteristic of race or ethnicity, but it is a set of behaviors. That means, a person elects to engage in homosexual behaviors, despite the sometimes declaration that they are compelled to do so or otherwise “have no choice” in those behaviors (which emphasizes that the motivations exist within a realm of psychology and are not of innate biology).
Many areas of education today — contrary to fact, in a flawed exploitation of an academic process (another indication of gradually increasing immorality, of instructing in an immoral process about immoral miscarriage of fact) — instruct that homosexuality is innate while instead, it has never been substantiated in biology that it is innate. It is, therefore, academically corrupt to be systematically instructing as to this point — it’s an act of requiring that participants accept something unproven as proven.
The intent by society is often, though, to help people become more comfortable with their individual conditions, whatever they are, but that does not mean therefore that certain behaviors are acceptable to other individiuals nor should they be. No one’s obligated to service the complaints of anyone else except from a point of individual decision to do so. But to instruct in acceptability of behaviors just because they exist is academic chaos, if not a violation of an academic process.
And, despite a lot of financial incentive, no “‘gay’ gene” has ever been identified. Nothing in our human DNA has been identified that “makes” an individual engage in homosexuality and therefore assigns one the label of being a “homosexual.” No chromosomal or otherwise biological basis has ever been identified that “makes” someone “homosexual” (which means, again, that it has never been proven that homosexuality is innate and that, therefore, assigns it to the realm of behavior).
The behavior of homosexuality, therefore, as with every possible other sort of acts known to man, has at some point in our humanity been considered within the realm of what is deemed acceptable or not, in other words, what is moral, what exists within the range of behaviors that people will and won’t accept if and as they are answerable on a mostly religious basis for their own legacy of behaviors and morality, both religiously based and non religiously based.
But, apparently, homosexual activism and the Democratic Party are of the concerted, organized intent that no one shall think outside their ideological box or they shall suffer being discarded. If your morality does not service their behaviors, then you’re deemed a target for harms by these groups.
I commend General Pace for his morals, I respect his morals and I respect how he’s stated them to be and why. I understand the importance of moral requirements in military service just as I recognize the need for a shared moral understanding by those who serve inorder to maintain military effectiveness.
What I don’t respect is the criticism that’s ensued about General Pace’s statements. Like a lot of people, I anticipate that Liberals will and do criticise if and as the statement reflects someone who is Christian and/or Republican, but I really disrespect the few Republicans who have attempted to chastise General Pace’s comments, as example:
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) also criticized Pace’s remarks, saying he disagrees with the assertion that homosexual behavior is immoral.
For those who reject this theology as to homosexual behavior, that is their, well, mental privilege. But for those who declare as Christians — Hillary Clinton has, Obama does, Warner may (not sure) — it’s the convenience of politics and personal gain with God as jewelry on a human ego, or, more specifically, desire dressed up with symbols, it’s a golden calf when accountability to the Almighty is too risky, requires too much, as in, it would cost votes.
And, from the STUPIDS file: