HOME

Gays in Military - General Peter Pace and "Gay Immorality": Are We Fighting the Enemy or Fighting Natural and Moral Manliness?

by Rabbi David Eidensohn

Chief of Staff of the US Military Marine General Peter Pace said in March 2007 that he felt that homosexuality was immoral. He therefore  did not want the policy instituted by President Clinton  "don't ask, don't tell" changed to allow open gays in the military. This produced a firestorm of protest among gays and their supporters.

For a homosexual man to join the male army is like a man rooming in a women's dormitory. What is the difference? Gays are known to pursue their desires and sometimes this results in violence and worse. Homosexuals were barred to quiet the constant tension that would undermine the morale and the ability of the army.  So what will happen now?

The larger issue in all of this is the cultural denigration of males whenever possible, such as in colleges. Today men are turning away from colleges because the radicals there create a climate hostile to men. The radicals, however, are not satisfied with controlling colleges and the upbringing of our young people, nor are they satisfied with their power in the media. They want to neuter the "manly" institutions in America, such as police, fire, and the military.

In the recent flooding disaster in New Orleans people were dying because no rescue people were available. They were available. An entire group of firemen were available, but they were detoured to Atlanta to learn about proper gender attitudes, meaning, how not to be a man, and so the old people and the helpless died in New Orleans. Nothing to the radicals is as important as changing men into neuters, not even people dying in a flood.

When America went to Afghanistan and Iraq at first people had great respect for them. Then the government sent in Cheney's daughter the lesbian who instituted a program of pacifying the natives and teaching them American values about men and women. That did it. The men who didn't want America's radicals to neuter them got nasty. Who opposed them? An American military whose prime mission is not fighting but achieving proper appreciation that women are as strong as men and as capable of killing as men, even though this is a complete lie and everyone who is not twisted by radicalism knows it.

An Army is a group of men who bond in ways known only to men and go about their fearsome job. An Army whose task it is to be good to women and lust for them instead of thinking about the enemy is doomed. An army whose task it is to have gay men openly lusting for other soldiers who don't like to be lusted for is an army that will never dare show its face in a hostile world.

General Pace is right that homosexuality is immoral. But why did he not touch upon the obvious? Open gays in the military will create the worst kinds of tension that will deny our country the army it needs for protection.  Armies of the world are ferocious men and they are fully bonded and prepared to do or die. America will have to match that or else withdraw from the world and take up gender sensitivity, until at least that the ferocious armies destroy their freedom.

And when open gays come into the military, can we imagine the task of teaching an entire army of men how to accommodate open homosexuality in the barracks and elsewhere? I don't know what will happen from that effort, but the army that it produces will not be much of a fighting force.

But does America care about surviving, or does it care only about radical notions of gender? Are we fighting the enemy, or are we fighting natural and moral manliness? That is the question.

The radicals consigned old people to die in New Orleans in order to divert strong firemen from saving lives to go and learn about gender issues. They will gladly destroy our army for their gender purposes. Will we take them on, or should we just sit around until it comes time to surrender or drown?