FoxNews reported that in a recent Senate Hearing the following transpired:
"I would be very willing and able and supportive" to changes to the policy "to continue to allow the homosexual community to contribute to the nation without condoning what I believe to be activity — whether it to be heterosexual or homosexual — that in my upbringing is not right," Pace said.
Pace's lengthy answer on gays was prodded by Sen. Tom Harkin, who said he found Pace's previous remarks as "very hurtful" and "very demoralizing" to homosexuals serving in the military.
In March, the Chicago Tribune reported that Pace said in a wide-ranging interview: "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."
Harkin, D-Iowa, said he wanted to give Pace a chance to amend his remarks in light of his retirement.
"It's a matter of leadership, and we have to be careful what we say," Harkin said.
Pace noted that the U.S. Military Code of Justice prohibits homosexual activity as well as adultery. Harkin said, "Well, maybe we should change that."
Does Your Comment "Maybe We Should Change That" mean that you plan to change the U.S. Military Code of Justice to allow both homosexual activity and adultery? Because if you only allow one without allowing the other, you are discriminating. It appears from your comment that you found General Pace's previous comments against homosexuals 'as "very hurtful" and "very demoralizing" to homosexuals serving in the military' and that you plan only to allow homosexual activity in the Military.
There are many adulterers in the military (and in the Space Program) and if you allow only homosexual behavior you are opening the Military for lawsuits from people who have received Military punishment for adultery.
If you allow both homosexual behavior and adultery, doesn't that mean that (ex)Astronaut Lisa Nowak will be one of the first people you notify about the change in status of homosexual and adulterous behavior in the Military?
By allowing adulterous behavior in the Military, doesn't that mean that the former Commander in Chief who had "sex with that woman" can now be exonerated?
Shouldn't you take a poll of Military Personnel first to see how many plan to engage in homosexual activity and/or adultery if the U. S. Military Code of Conduct is changed?
Or maybe do you think you need to do some additional studying of the situation because opening one door without opening the other is "hateful" and "mean spirited" and "selfish" and may cause "great emotional harm" and just may not be best for our Military and our Nation?
Thank you for reading my email.
////Signed////
Retired
If you are unaware of the current U.S. Military Code of Conduct regarding homosexuality, you will find it here.
I completed a word search on Google and found out that adultery is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Military Code of Conduct. Now, since the Military was nearly 100% men in the past, is there a "manly" reason that adultery is not mentioned? Why the oversight, GUYS??? You have your Adultery and now you want your Homosexual Activities, too?
Kind of eye opening, isn't it? It is obvious to me that Men Make Up The Rules!! Why is Adultery not mentioned in the U.S. Military Code of Conduct??
I'm going to contact my Senators tomorrow and ask this question. If you get an answer before I do, please let me know in the comments section.
No comments:
Post a Comment