Much as I disagree with him, I’m fascinated by the idea that General Pace’s latest remarks about gays in the military are “hurtful”:

“We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it,” he added. “And that is, very simply, that we 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.”
Anti-war protesters sitting behind Pace jeered the four-star general’s remarks with some shouting, “Bigot!” That led Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to abruptly adjourn the hearing and seal off the doors.
The hearing resumed about five minutes later in which Pace said he would be supportive of efforts to revisit the Pentagon’s policy so long as it didn’t violate his belief that sex should be restricted to a married heterosexual couple.
The hearing resumed about five minutes later in which Pace said he would be supportive of efforts to revisit the Pentagon’s policy so long as it didn’t violate his belief that sex should be restricted to a married heterosexual couple.”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.”

OK, for starters I disagree with General Pace’s religious views about homosexuality. More than that, I disagree with his opinion that “the law of the land” ought not “condone” that which disagrees with his religious views, because I think that this elevates his religious views above those who disagree with them. (Which means that it would also tend to violate the Constitution.)
But unless I have lost my ability to be logical, this amounts to a disagreement, does it not?
Since when is a disagreement “hurtful” to anyone? The man stated his opinion, and it reflects what he says is his religious view that homosexuality is “counter to God’s law.”
What makes that hurtful? Either you believe in God or you don’t. If you don’t, then why on earth would you worry about what someone says God says? And if you do believe in God, then you either agree with General Pace’s interpretation of God’s law or you do not. You might have a different interpretation, as I do.
Suppose for a moment that you’re a pagan, and you believe that your religious rights include the right to engage in what amount to sexual rites, including homosexual rites. (Rights are rites, right?) Would this be “hurtful” to others?
If so, then religion is inherently hurtful. I don’t think it is.
Unless the goal is an orgy of mass delusions of persecution, I think people need to get over it.
MORE: Can Hollywood be hurtful too? Read about the “Brokeback mountain of lies“! (Via Glenn Reynolds.) Shouldn’t inclusion be a two-way street?