FYI ref: Homosexuality, morality, military service.

[mismused]

delete

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, let's just hope that we don't need those troops, including those Arabic specialists...

 

[Boxlicker101]

PW/OFC

* * *

Gen. Pace Calls Homosexuality Immoral

WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

``I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way,'' Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

He said he supports the Pentagon's ``don't ask, don't tell policy'' in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

``I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,'' Pace said.

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

With Democrats in charge of Congress, Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has introduced legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly serving homosexuals.

On the Net:

Chicago Tribune: www.chicagotribune.com

This guy sounds like something of a crackpot, at least in this regard. He may be extremely competent in some things, but he's still a crackpot. Homosexuality, being an inborn trait is neither moral or immoral; it just is.

Morals are an idividual thing, and if he says adultery or fornication are immoral, he is right. They would be for him. If he were to fornicate or commit adultery, it would be immoral because he thinks of them as immoral. When I used to fornicate or commit adultery, I was not being immoral, because I didn't think those things were immoral. I still don't, nor do I think it is immoral to eat a pussy or suck a cock or fuck somebody in the ass, no matter what the genders of the persons involved might be. Of course, I am referring to consenting adults doing these things.

The problem with outlawing immorality is, whose immorality? Do we follow the dictates of Pat Robertson of Hugh Hefner. If it were up to me, I would choose the latter, but I am a dirty old man, like he is.

 

[TE999]

WTF does a persons sexual orientation have to do with their ability to serve their country?

That old mossback needs to be put out to pasture.

And this 'don't ask' business is just plain stupid.

When is the military going to bring it's attitudes into the 21st century along with it's weaponry?

 

[mckai777]

When is the military going to bring it's attitudes into the 21st century along with it's weaponry?

I can't answer this question, but I do know there will in all likelihood continue to be stiff resistance from the armed service sector on this issue. It might even have something to do with our culture's false notions of machismo, but who knows.

 

[Boxlicker101]

WTF does a persons sexual orientation have to do with their ability to serve their country?

That old mossback needs to be put out to pasture.

And this 'don't ask' business is just plain stupid.

When is the military going to bring it's attitudes into the 21st century along with it's weaponry?

I am strongly inclined to agree with opinions such as yours, but I still remember when I was in the Air force, many years ago. In particular. I remember the barracks and the lack of privacy. It didn't bother me at the time, because we were all guys together. The showers were open, a square room with a cement floor and several nozzles protruding from the walls. It was quite common for me to be showering and for another naked man to walk in to do the same. Nobody thought anything of this. If we were buddies, we might converse, or we might say nothing to each other, but we never stared.

On the other hand, if I had known that some of the men who shared a barracks were gay, (although the term was not in common use back then) and one of them joined me in the shower and started lusting for me, I'd have probably half killed him. Of course, I was 17 or 18 years old at the time, and had a lot more hair and a lot less belly than I have now. I would probably be flattered now.

By the way, don't tell me that gay men are only attracted to other gay men, because I was hit on enough when I was younger to know it's not so. A gay man may be preferred, but he would not be required. A cock and an ass are the same, regardless of the sexual orientation of their owners.

To me, it would be much the same as having completely co-educational living quarters, with men and woman sharing rooms, shower and, latrines. Most women would dislike the idea intensely, and most men wouldn't really like the idea either. Everybody wants some privacy. I'm sure the housing situation has improved since then, but it would still be a problem. Except for that, however, I would be 100% in favor of the idea.

 

[mckai777]

To me, it would be much the same as having completely co-educational living quarters, with men and woman sharing rooms, shower and, latrines. Most women would dislike the idea intensely, and most men wouldn't really like the idea either.

This is interesting, and something I hadn't even considered.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Boxlicker101]This guy sounds like something of a crackpot, at least in this regard. He may be extremely competent in some things, but he's still a crackpot. Homosexuality, being an inborn trait is neither moral or immoral; it just is.

Morals are an idividual thing, and if he says adultery or fornication are immoral, he is right. They would be for him. If he were to fornicate or commit adultery, it would be immoral because he thinks of them as immoral. When I used to fornicate or commit adultery, I was not being immoral, because I didn't think those things were immoral. I still don't, nor do I think it is immoral to eat a pussy or suck a cock or fuck somebody in the ass, no matter what the genders of the persons involved might be. Of course, I am referring to consenting adults doing these things.

The problem with outlawing immorality is, whose immorality? Do we follow the dictates of Pat Robertson of Hugh Hefner. If it were up to me, I would choose the latter, but I am a dirty old man, like he is.[/QUOTE]


~~~

I don't care, no one cares, Box, what you believe, believe as you will.

But... "... Homosexuality, being an inborn trait is neither moral or immoral; it just is. ..."

Show me, show us, one shred of factual evidence that your statement is true. You cannot.

"...Morals are an idividual thing, ..." Oh really? Izzat what you really think, that if an individual kidnaps, rapes and kills a nine year old girl, such as has been in the news lately, then that is a 'moral' thing? Because he thought it was?

Note that although my opinions have been clearly expressed elsewhere, that took no position on this, I merely challenge your assertions. Prove it, show me, defend and justify your belief's as being rational or logical, or whatever ethical system you claim to support your assertions...I would really like to read them.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

i think box is basically right that homosexuality is more inborn than chosen (as sin or lifestyle).

if not present from birth, it's often jelled in adolescence, and no reasonable theory has been able to predict it from family dynamics.

for one thing, a family may produce one gay male (female) and one straight one, suggesting its not the family.

as to evidence of 'inbornness,' or as I would say, deeply rooted tendency, i'd point to the lack of success that gays or would-be 'savers/curers of gays' have had in changing the orientation. i'd say it's like getting aroused by big boobs, or silk stockings.

most alleged 'success' are temporary suppressions of behavior but lots of misery and gay fantasizing. a pyrrhic 'cure.'

further i think box is right that homosexuality--either the leaning or behavior-- is not, per se, immoral, any more than ami's (or box's) penchant for pussy licking. the act MAY be immoral depending on the consent of those involved, their degree of betrayal etc. it may be unwise, as when ami got gonorrhea in the throat, but that's foolish not wrong.

 

[Guest]

i would never ask him if he was straight before i saved his ass. "those pants don't really go with those boots." not something i would think before doing cpr.


oh and because im gay, does that make my entire family gay? you mean we wont have to worry about the draft?
awesome.

but really, we'd still serve. to provide protection for people just like this goon and his right to say what he feels is immoral.


we're nice that way.

 

[amicus]

It's really getting to be "Saturday Night Live" comical on this site, to follow the escapades of Pure and SHEREADS, as they scurry about the forum, attempting to cover up and repair the rents in the fabric torn in the Secular Humanist lifestyle by the ranting and raving Amicus, like a bull in a china shop. Makes me consider the possibility the SheReads and Pure are one and the same, gender alternatives notwithstanding...but then...who cares.

Note, if you will, the latest antic of Pure, the rodeo clown, as he scurries, still CYA wise, to defend the defenseless Boxlicker, but still not commit himself to a truth, neither here nor there, truly amusing, my first real smile tonight on the forum, to watch Pure wriggle and scheme and then finally revert to form of a personal affront, STD in the the throat, showing, of course, no class at all, the level of descent into trailer park white trash.

Y'all sit back on the sidelines, for the most part and sit on your hands. No matter. I don't need you anyway.

amicus....

 

[Guest]

Gleefully antagonistic these days, aren't you ami?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=sweetsubsarahh]Gleefully antagonistic these days, aren't you ami?[/QUOTE]


~~~


Gimme a break...you can read I was purposely goaded into a response, McKai saw it coming, pure pushed it, probe me with a sharp stick, I ain't ever gonna turn tits up and you know it...why not give a secret smile for my method, rather than diss me without cause?

amicus...

 

[Guest]

[QUOTE=sweetsubsarahh]Gleefully antagonistic these days, aren't you ami?

~~~


Gimme a break...you can read I was purposely goaded into a response, McKai saw it coming, pure pushed it, probe me with a sharp stick, I ain't ever gonna turn tits up and you know it...why not give a secret smile for my method, rather than diss me without cause?

amicus...[/QUOTE]


But it hasn't just been on this thread, dear ami.

You've been tittering with malicious glee for some time now.

(And I do NOT want to look at your tits.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

[QUOTE=Boxlicker101]This guy sounds like something of a crackpot, at least in this regard. He may be extremely competent in some things, but he's still a crackpot. Homosexuality, being an inborn trait is neither moral or immoral; it just is.

Morals are an idividual thing, and if he says adultery or fornication are immoral, he is right. They would be for him. If he were to fornicate or commit adultery, it would be immoral because he thinks of them as immoral. When I used to fornicate or commit adultery, I was not being immoral, because I didn't think those things were immoral. I still don't, nor do I think it is immoral to eat a pussy or suck a cock or fuck somebody in the ass, no matter what the genders of the persons involved might be. Of course, I am referring to consenting adults doing these things.

The problem with outlawing immorality is, whose immorality? Do we follow the dictates of Pat Robertson of Hugh Hefner. If it were up to me, I would choose the latter, but I am a dirty old man, like he is.

~~~

I don't care, no one cares, Box, what you believe, believe as you will.

But... "... Homosexuality, being an inborn trait is neither moral or immoral; it just is. ..."

Show me, show us, one shred of factual evidence that your statement is true. You cannot.

"...Morals are an idividual thing, ..." Oh really? Izzat what you really think, that if an individual kidnaps, rapes and kills a nine year old girl, such as has been in the news lately, then that is a 'moral' thing? Because he thought it was?

Note that although my opinions have been clearly expressed elsewhere, that took no position on this, I merely challenge your assertions. Prove it, show me, defend and justify your belief's as being rational or logical, or whatever ethical system you claim to support your assertions...I would really like to read them.

amicus...[/QUOTE]

It has never been absolutely proven that homosexuality is an inborn trait, but it has also never been proven that it is not. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to prove it is, as Pure says, but no absolute proof. I don't see how there ever could be, outside of widescale experimentation on babies.

I would call John Couey many things, but probably not immoral. That would be too tame. Hopefully, today will be the day he is sentenced to death. However, since his actioins do not involve consenting adults, they are not included in what I said.

 

[Pure]

i think we've all come to terms with amicus as a troll like entity with whom we have occasional exchanges to abate the _tedium vitae_. he's apparently of a minority splinter of the Objectivist Church devoted to discrediting the main body of Ayn Rand's believers through unbridled exhibition of sheer fatuity.

this 'man,' besides parroting Rove, Cheney, etc. and every enemy of liberty, picked up my rodeo clown metaphor some time ago and wants to beat it to death.

because of the tape like quality of his emissions the only true use i can think of would be to have him talking to prisoners at Guantanamo, providing a kind of verbal white noise through speakers in their cells that would surely bring disorientation, if not quick confession in the most hardened jihadi.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I find is unbelievable that Pace could call Homosexuality immoral, when he is the head of the corporation that exists only for KILLING. Now that's immoral in my book. It seems obvious to me that Pace is a closet gay. Let's run and tell his buddies in the White House















Never mind. They are closet gays too

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." Gen. Peter Pace (USMC) chairman, JCS

Gay advocates demand apology from general. Yahoo/AP headline

I'm sure these folks are shocked, shocked, to learn a 50-something Marine Corps general harbors such beliefs. These demands for an apology raise what, to me, would seem a logical question: apologize for what--holding such beliefs, or expressing them? When someone becomes chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, do they lose the right to express beliefs that might run counter to those of some, or even all, gay advocates?

If I were a cynic, I'd say those working for gay/lesbian equality are hoping to use Pace's comments to advance their cause. That's fine, except in doing so, they seem to be saying being in agreement with their agenda is more important than freedom of speech.

In other words, a cynic might decide the protests are a form of "straight-bashing" designed to create a "don't agree, don't tell" public atmosphere and thereby muzzle opposing opinions.

That's all folks. Feel free to return to the personal insults, vilifications, imputations of opponents' intellect, veracity, and hygiene that tend to distingush so many "spirited" AH debates.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[3113]

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly

If it's immoral, then he can't allow gays to serve at all--openly or otherwise, can he? Man's a hypocrite if he's willing to allow them to serve IF they keep being gay secret. That'd be like saying, "I think stealing is immoral and thieves shouldn't serve in the military, but if they lie and don't say they're thieves, we'll let them stay--even if they keep on stealing when they're off duty."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Gay advocates demand apology from general. Yahoo/AP headline

I'm sure these folks are shocked, shocked, to learn a 50-something Marine Corps general harbors such beliefs. These demands for an apology raise what, to me, would seem a logical question: apologize for what--holding such beliefs, or expressing them? When someone becomes chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, do they lose the right to express beliefs that might run counter to those of some, or even all, gay advocates?

If I were a cynic, I'd say those working for gay/lesbian equality are hoping to use Pace's comments to advance their cause. That's fine, except in doing so, they seem to be saying being in agreement with their agenda is more important than freedom of speech.

In other words, a cynic might decide the protests are a form of "straight-bashing" designed to create a "don't agree, don't tell" public atmosphere and thereby muzzle opposing opinions.

That's all folks. Feel free to return to the personal insults, vilifications, imputations of opponents' intellect, veracity, and hygiene that tend to distingush so many "spirited" AH debates.

Rumple Foreskin

Well, I'm not going to insult anybody. I don't believe anybody owes anybody an apology for stating an opinion, as the general has done. I disagree with him on this and other things he believes, but I respect his right to hold and express those opinions. If, however, he uses his authority to try to impose his beliefs on others, that is another matter.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I suppose Pace believes if the gays were allowed to serve openly, they'd want pink uniforms with purses and spend their time redecorating the barricks. That's what they do, yanno

 

[Pure]

hi rumps,

i don't see this as free speech, you scruffy old dog no more than if Bush says 'i don't think you're tortured unless they cut your arm off.' such opinions are enacted, are they not?

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

i don't see this as free speech, you scruffy old dog no more than if Bush says 'i don't think you're tortured unless they cut your arm off.' such opinions are enacted, are they not?

In the immortal words of James Brown, "Please, please, please," don't lower the level of debate by bringing up anything GWB says.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[mckai777]

That's all folks. Feel free to return to the personal insults, vilifications, imputations of opponents' intellect, veracity, and hygiene that tend to distingush so many "spirited" AH debates.

I want to bear your children.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I want to bear your children.

At the moment that particular position is taken. But I'd love to have you number one (and only) on my waiting list.

Rumple Foreskin