March 17, 2006
First, I would like to be unapologetically supportive of Marine General Peter Pace. In a culture where we are tolerant of every possible moral views, except of course moral views that are based on the Bible, it is particularly stunning but not surprising that the left has called out the “tolerance” dogs demanding an apology. What did Marine General Pace say? You might ask. Did he use the only “F-word” that causes liberals to blush? No. Did he say that he hated people who were gay? No. In fact, compared to those two other recent instances reported in the media, he handled his personal opinion in a way that was both respectful but more importantly, told the truth:

"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way."

After such an intolerant statement of truth, I expected liberals to ambush, but what is more disparaging is the “conservative” response to this statement. Let’s start with Senator John Warner of Virginia:

"I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."

Or there is our administration, Tony Snow stated that President Bush:

"has always said that the most important thing is that we ought not to prejudge one another..."

Way to support the troops there Tony, and exactly how is this prejudging? Am I the only one that thinks that it is hard to prejudge someone who has purposefully and willfully participated in conduct that is unhealthy, unnatural, and, according to us “haters”, immoral. I, for one am tired of the radical homosexual lobby constantly and consistently demeaning everyone and anyone who doesn’t prescribe to the theory that having sex with anyone or anything at anytime is beneficial to the continuation of a civilization. And here is some friendly advice. If one thing that the homosexual lobby has to overcome is the perception that gay men are…errr…less manly, then wouldn’t it be beneficial to be able to laugh at certain things and not be such wusses. Like the Snickers commercial during the Super Bowl…if this had been a shot at Christians, there would have been no big deal. Make fun of a snickers “kiss?” You are an irresponsible advertiser. But would it be enough to hold everyone to the same standards of decency? Absolutely not, because what we have seen is an increasing acceptability of irresponsible behavior just because a homosexual committed the act.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the following example, a college basketball coach has a sexual affair with a female player. Can you imagine the moral indignation? The outcry? That coach would have been sacrificed in the media, maybe there would have been some high level investigations into how often this occurs, and maybe some NCAA regulations into contact between coaches and players? Of course! If the coach had been male, but since this was a real instance and the coach was female…the most an ESPN columnist could report on is how bad the university handled the announcement and making the university sound bad because they hadn’t allowed the coach to even tell her players what happened. Am I saying that this coach was treated differently because she was gay? Absolutely! Why? Because the moment someone would have cried out with indignation, they would have been dubbed as close minded bigots by the radical homosexual lobby. Is that unreasonable? No, just ask Marine General Pace. Instead of focusing on how to maintain moral integrity in the military and defeating terrorists, they want to focus on attacking those who dare suggest that there are morally superior lifestyles than that of adultery and homosexuality.