"[W]e should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."
~ General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

With one week left before retirement, General Pace is seeking to clarify his remarks made about homosexuality in the military earlier this year. In the face of pandering morons like Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), General Pace is made to sound as if he is a hate-monger. This is despite the fact that the U.S. military has consistently condemned homosexual acts throughout its history. But, in an age dominated by pluralism, a grotesque historical revisionism is underway that makes Gen. Pace appear out-of-step and suggests that U.S. history was largely gay-friendly. Hogwash!

This comes as no surprise when compared with a similar revisionism on the secular left over the founding of this nation--was it founded as a Christian nation? Secular revisionists revolt at the slightest indication that the founding fathers had a Christian nation in mind, or that their notion of "religious freedom" did not include having muslims or buddhists becoming president. Secularists offer us an image of the founding fathers as a cadre of latte-sipping liberals celebrating their new creation of a freedom-based republic as a beach head for practicing sodomites. When this distorted paradigm represents the tenor of the American temperament, a Gen. Pace holds a position just below the Klan.

Gen. Pace is correct: gay sex is immoral and no U.S. or military law should condone it. This is not bigotry--it is righteousness. It is not bigotry to oppose man-boy love, bestiality, or necrophilia. It is righteous to oppose these immoral behaviors. Like other mind-tricks such as "anti-semitism," the retort of "bigot" every time someone condemns homosexuality is a loser's tactic to stay in the game. I don't grant the homosexual the right to frame the debate around bigotry or phobias. I could easily do the same in reference to their hatred and fear of Bible-believing Christians, but they won't permit that.

Their "disapproval" of Bible-believing Christians, they say, is because we oppose their consensual love. Our disapproval of their lifestyle is because of our love for God and His Law. So, if God exists, and the Bible is His infallible Word, then the Christian is on solid footing. If not, then all things are permitted--philosophically speaking. Therefore, let the debate begin there. Enough with the casting about of pejoratives like "hate-monger."

They are the ones that have cast off reasoned debate. They are the ones who refuse to argue ethically by disregarding all appeals for them to produce an abiding standard that 1) even remotely justifies their behavior, and 2) that doesn't lead to a condoning of all forms of sexual perversion. That's why NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Assoc.) earnestly waits a national ruling permitting gay marriage. Their goal "is to end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen, mutually consensual relationships." In other words, older queers want a legalization of their unrestrained desire to sodomize young boys. This is not a "consensual relationship." If you want a relationship, become a big brother. Make a friend of a young man in need of fatherly support. But that's not what they really want. They want sex; and for some twisted reason, the younger, the better.

I'm glad General Pace stuck to his convictions. Being a traditional American Christian, I'm sure he's weary of the political control being imposed on the U.S. military.

Should gays be in the military? Well, according to General George Washington, a republic should be wary of a standing military. Plus, the question puts the cart before the horse. As mentioned above, we have to answer the ethical question first.