2
   

Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:10 am
A military officer's views on morality are as to morality as military music is to music.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:16 am
Baldimo wrote:
boomerang wrote:
I don't agree with him at all but he is entitled to his opinion and the fact that his opinion coincides with what the Army has been saying forever shouldn't be a surprise.

It sounds like he thinks any sex outside of marriage is immoral.


No he said having sex with someone who isn't your spouse was immoral. He didn't make a comment that I saw on sex before marriage, that is your words not his.


He went a little further than that -

Quote:
Pace also told the paper, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:47 am
joefromchicago wrote:
A military officer's views on morality are as to morality as military music is to music.


So you suggest that the moral opinions of military men are loud, rhythmic, brassy and simple-minded?

A clever quip, but i do not agree. In any profession, few men or women ever rise to the level of brilliance, whether in matters professional, intellectual or "moral." There are many examples, however, in American history, of successful military officers who had an acute "moral" sense, even though we might not agree with their conclusions. Just a few spring immediately to mind--Ulysses Grant, a man with flaws almost too numerous to mention, nevertheless criticized the Mexican War on moral grounds, and both you and i have posted his opinion on that topic in the past. George Henry Thomas, one of the least known of Federal officers in the American Civil War, was sufficiently moral as to oppose slavery, although he was a native of Virginia, and to therefore remain in the Federal service. He was, in my never humble opinion, the most intelligent and modern military officer of his day. Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, as he called it, even though one might have assumed that the complex would be his natural ally. George Marshall was highly intelligent, and his plan for putting western Europe back on its feet as quickly as possible was brilliant, from points of view military, political and "moral."

But i digress . . .
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:49 am
On thinking of the matter further, sort of changed my mind.

His mere expressing an opinion of believing homosexuality to be immoral is perfectly alright. However, when looking at the context of his opinion, he crossed the line of just having an opinion and using that opinion to explain why he feels we should stick with the "don't ask don't tell" policy in the military. (don't exactly know how to explain, but maybe someone can make it out)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:56 am
osso wrote: I think any sexual matter is only the armed forces' business in so far as there might be activity within a command structure, thus potentially causing conflict in the carrying out of duty - the same for the whole range of sexual attractions, whatever the usual rules are re heterosexual personnel in the armed forces..

That a general or a Pentagon would tell the entire armed forces what is moral or immoral in their private affairs is inappropriate, unless the instances in question itself involved force or harassment.


I agree 100%. What people do privately that doesn't hurt anybody else is none of the business of government, even if there are laws on the books against it. The primary issue should be "performance of duty."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:16 am
And it's final:
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:27 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
And it's final:


He shouldn't have to appoligize. He is a US citizen and has freedom of speech. What he said was his personal opinion and there is no evidence that his decisions have effected his judgement or orders. If it were to be found that he has let his personal feelings effect his judgements then I would say a "sorry" would be called for.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:36 am
General Pace offended the gay and lesbians, so whether he apologizes or not is a matter that offends most people who are not homophobic. It's called "discrimination."
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 12:00 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
General Pace offended the gay and lesbians, so whether he apologizes or not is a matter that offends most people who are not homophobic. It's called "discrimination."


He thinks its immoral and you say he is discriminating against people? What ever happened to free speech?

Where does my right to free speech fall by the way side to your feelings? I didn't know feelings were protected in the Constitution.

Was Gen. Pace talking as an offical of his post, or was this a personal interview?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 12:22 pm
Free speech is not the issue; it's his homophobia. He can speak all he wishes to make a fool of himself.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 12:45 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Free speech is not the issue; it's his homophobia. He can speak all he wishes to make a fool of himself.


This is kind of like the whole race issue with immigration. If you don't agree with them you must be a bigot, racist or a homophobe. I'm sure in certain cases some will be labeled as all three. That is how you get the oppisition to be quite. Call them names and hope that it works to silence them. If that fails then put words into their mouths to make it seem they said something they really didn't.

Say something enough times and people will beleive it is the truth.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 12:47 pm
Baldimo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Free speech is not the issue; it's his homophobia. He can speak all he wishes to make a fool of himself.


This is kind of like the whole race issue with immigration. If you don't agree with them you must be a bigot, racist or a homophobe. I'm sure in certain cases some will be labeled as all three. That is how you get the oppisition to be quite. Call them names and hope that it works to silence them. If that fails then put words into their mouths to make it seem they said something they really didn't.

Say something enough times and people will beleive it is the truth.


Noone's working to silence anyone. Pace is free to have and express whatever opinions he likes. Of course, we are free to call for a bigoted homophobe to be removed from an important and PUBLIC office. It seems that it is YOU who are trying to silence US.

Pace clearly said that Homosexuality is immoral. This is an antiquated position which is being done away with in our society. He's the equivalent of a racist.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 01:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Free speech is not the issue; it's his homophobia. He can speak all he wishes to make a fool of himself.


This is kind of like the whole race issue with immigration. If you don't agree with them you must be a bigot, racist or a homophobe. I'm sure in certain cases some will be labeled as all three. That is how you get the oppisition to be quite. Call them names and hope that it works to silence them. If that fails then put words into their mouths to make it seem they said something they really didn't.

Say something enough times and people will beleive it is the truth.


Noone's working to silence anyone. Pace is free to have and express whatever opinions he likes. Of course, we are free to call for a bigoted homophobe to be removed from an important and PUBLIC office. It seems that it is YOU who are trying to silence US.

Pace clearly said that Homosexuality is immoral. This is an antiquated position which is being done away with in our society. He's the equivalent of a racist.

Cycloptichorn


It's a rare day when I find myself disagreeing with you, Cyclops. However, people even in this day and age are still allowed to hold their own religious or moral views. I don't know for sure, but if Pace is a fundamental Christian who takes the bible seriously, he has no choice but to believe homosexuality is immoral. The Bible of which fundamental Christians believe doesn't just go out of style with the times, or at least I don't believe it is supposed to.

On the other hand someone holding religious or moral views is one thing; someone trying to legislate religious or moral views is another thing entirely.

I don't think there is anything wrong with what Pace said. People have a right to their own beliefs and to express them even if they offend others. What I find wrong is Pace using his religious beliefs as a reason to support the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 01:44 pm
"Pace clearly said that Homosexuality is immoral. This is an antiquated position which is being done away with in our society. He's the equivalent of a racist. "

In YOUR opinion, I presume.

The is no factual representation that reflect our societies total acceptance of homosexuality as the "NORM".

So once again, this represents the looney lefts stance that if you disagree with them on a position, YOU are the target of name calling and slander.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 01:49 pm
well when you address a group of people as the looney left ALL the time I suppose it's reasonable to expect that you will be addressed respectfully....... IF YOU'RE A F**KING MORON!!!! Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 01:51 pm
Thank "god" most Americans are not homophobic.

Acceptance of Gays on Rise, Polls Show
While 30 years' worth of surveys consistently show a majority of Americans against same-sex marriage, they also reveal some remarkable shifts in attitudes.

Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2004
Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Fax: 213-237-7679 or 213-237-5319
Email: [email protected]

By James Ricci and Patricia Ward Biederman, Times Staff Writers

That gays are more widely accepted in American society is readily apparent in everything from television sitcoms to corporate anti-discrimination policies to recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

Less apparent is why and how the shift in attitude occurred. Although some religious and social leaders believe the new visibility of gays points to a national moral decline, the evolution of attitudes about gays is a complex brew of factors, according to historians, social psychologists and others who have studied the phenomenon.

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., has compiled 30 years' worth of major public opinion poll results on Americans' attitudes toward homosexuals. While the surveys consistently show that about two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage, an issue that has now reached the California Supreme Court, they also demonstrate remarkable shifts on numerous other fronts. For example:

• Public acceptance of gays in the military grew from 51% in a 1977 Gallup Poll to 80% in 2003.

• Approval of gays as elementary school teachers grew from 27% in 1977 to 61% over the same period.

• A 1999 Gallup survey showed that 59% would vote for a well-qualified presidential candidate who was homosexual, up from 26% in 1978.

"There's been an enormous increase in tolerance - that's the bottom line," said Karlyn Bowman, who compiled the poll results for the institute.

Some of the factors fueling the changes have been related to gays' own efforts, some have not. Some factors have opposed one another, some have been mutually reinforcing. The black civil rights movement, changes in state and local laws, the AIDS epidemic and even the Sept. 11 catastrophe have been part of the mix.

Two powerful societal forces associated with the 1960s - the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement - are credited with driving the change in attitude.

The emergence of widespread contraception and a new insistence on sexual privacy were key elements in Americans' evolving view of sexuality, according to Gregory Herek, a UC Davis psychology professor and an authority on sexual orientation and prejudice. That a person's sexual behavior was his or her affair, and not society's, became an accepted precept.

That philosophy eventually led last year to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, which abolished anti-sodomy laws. Just 17 years earlier, in Bowers vs. Hardwick, the high court had upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law, essentially agreeing that homosexuality was a crime.

"In the Bowers case, the court's opinion essentially trivialized the lives of gay people," said Herek, who helped prepare abolitionist briefs in both high court cases. "In the Lawrence opinion, the court recognized the important role sex plays in people's lives, and recognized gay people as human beings. The tone was so different. It was a tremendous change."

Civil Rights' Influence

Whether that change was viewed as good or bad, it occurred in part because the black civil rights movement - well organized, passionately led and highly visible - served as a model for subsequent movements.

"It became imaginable to talk about the harassment of gay workers really only after people had talked about the harassment of African American workers, Latino workers and women workers," said University of Chicago historian George Chauncey, who has chronicled the evolution of gay culture.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 01:59 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
well when you address a group of people as the looney left ALL the time I suppose it's reasonable to expect that you will be addressed respectfully....... IF YOU'RE A F**KING MORON!!!! Laughing Laughing


Thank you for continuing to prove me right again. So it is acceptable behavior to use such vulgar when you do not have the intelligence to discuss the matter objectively.

Have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 02:02 pm
woiyo wrote:
"Pace clearly said that Homosexuality is immoral. This is an antiquated position which is being done away with in our society. He's the equivalent of a racist. "

In YOUR opinion, I presume.

The is no factual representation that reflect our societies total acceptance of homosexuality as the "NORM".

So once again, this represents the looney lefts stance that if you disagree with them on a position, YOU are the target of name calling and slander.


It's not my opinion, but the opinion of the people of the United States of America:

Quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."


Homophobia and bigotry towards gays is against the very nature of our constitution and the spirit of America itself.

I'm not interested in anyone's religious opinion about what is right or wrong, when dealing with anything having to do with politics or our government. Ever. It has no place in the discussion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 02:19 pm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 02:22 pm
woiyo wrote:


Don't attack me, son, because you're against what it means to be an American.

It's okay with me that you don't believe that people are equal, and that bigotry towards them is okay, but don't claim that such an attitude reflects what America is all about.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:46:22