Morality Schmorality

(Author’s Note: I’ve done a bit of editing since the original post to clarify my point.) 

Everyone should know by now about the latest coal added to the already raging homosexuality debate fire. If you’ve been under a log, the short version is that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview (free registration req’d) that homosexual acts are immoral, much like adultery, and the military should not condone immoral lifestyles. It almost doesn’t matter what else he said because now that the words homosexual and immoral have been uttered in the same breath, you can bet a burning effigy will follow close behind.

Feel free to comment on whether you think openly gay people should be allowed in the military, but that’s actually not the purpose of my post. I’d rather consider media bias and the word immoral.

First, I watched one of the CNN talking heads (Paula Zahn) interview an openly gay former Marine (Eric Alva) the night the story hit. To paraphrase:

Zahn:  General Pace said homosexual acts are immoral. You served your country for eleven years in the Marine Corps, and you’re a combat veteran. Do you believe you’re immoral?

Alva:  No.

For those of you who refuse to acknowledge a left-wing media bias, here’s a nice example. She framed the question so the general’s comment was juxtaposed with the idea that the Marine is a hero. What’s a viewer to think? How ever could a hero be an immoral person? If you could say such a thing, perhaps you’re the one missing a moral compass.

So with the damage done, she was free to ask the most relevant question: what did the gay Marine think of his homosexuality? But was questioning the Marine’s views on the morality of his lifestyle really relevant? No, no, double no! The purpose of going down the morality road was to discredit the general’s opinion on homosexuality. In fact, most of the interview focused on homophobia and bigotry. What, the general’s not allowed to disagree with a particular lifestyle choice? Come on, folks. The real political issue was whether it was appropriate for the general to express any personal opinion, though I think we all know what the reaction would have been if he had come out in support of gays. As it was, our friendly news media took the opportunity to advance its liberal agenda. In this case, that meant parading a hero posterchild across our televisions and daring America to think ill of him.

Second point. The word immorality is fast becoming meaningless, making any reasonable discussion on whether homosexuality is right or wrong something approaching absurd. I mean to say that there’s little use discussing what is moral if the standard by which we measure it is relative at best, or completely missing at worst. Ask the average Joe, especially if he’s gay, whether a given thing is moral or not, and Joe’s likely to start his reply with an implied “I think.” Ask a person of faith and his answer should begin with a reference to his moral standard (i.e., God, The Bible, that sort of thing). See the difference? (I never said I had no bias. I make no apology and no effort to conceal it.)

Of course, Joe got the “I think” somewhere, and there is an entire conversation worth having on that question, perhaps a la C.S. Lewis. For the current issue, though, my point is that the homosexuality debate is filled with “I think”s, and I’d really like to know where those thinks are coming from. If they’re truly individual (read: a hodgepodge of “rules” convenient to a given mood), then I move we strike the word morality from the discussion and be a little more honest with ourselves. Don’t we really just want to do what makes us feel good? Hey, it worked for the hippies. And America’s been great ever since they showed up.