Pat Buchanan writes about Gen. Pace’s comments about DADT at the Worldnutdaily. I especially love this line:
The Washington Post allowed as how Pace “is entitled to his opinions, of course,” but should have considered the “impact of his public expression of intolerance on the men and women he commands.”
But if declaring homosexual acts immoral is an “expression of intolerance,” the Post is charging the Catholic Church and traditional Christians with 2,000 years of intolerance, as well as all U.S. Armed Forces prior to 1993, when homosexuals were routinely severed.
Um. Okay. And that charge would be correct. It’s perfectly legal, in fact constitutionally protected, to express such opinions; but they’re still intolerant. Then there’s this red herring:
What do the moralists at the Post say of Pace’s “intolerance” of adultery? Should the general have first considered the “impact of his public expression of intolerance” on the adulterers in the barracks or officers’ club?
There is a clear difference here: adultery is dishonest and violates the oath of marriage (assuming it’s not an open marriage, in which case I wouldn’t consider it adultery). Homosexuality does not. The first is immoral, the second is not. And then there’s this one:
This brings us to the heart of the matter. Is homosexuality – not the orientation, but the activity – inherently immoral?
On Pace’s side, that homosexuality is immoral, we have the Bible and Quran, 2,000 years of Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and natural law, the moral beliefs of virtually every society to the present, and the laws of every state before the 1960s. Up to 1973, psychiatrists treated it as a disorder. Nations where homosexuality is rampant have been regarded as “decadent.”
Let’s try a similar one:
“On Jefferson Davis’ side, that slavery is immoral, we have the Bible and Quran, 1800 years of Christianity, the moral beliefs of virtually every society from the beginning of human civilization until the late Enligtenment period and the laws of half the states before the 1860s. Up to the mid-1700s, philosophers treated it as a normal state of affairs.”
Works just as well. Appealing merely to tradition, without making a logical argument, is absolutely pointless.