Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

Cycloptichorn:

Quote:

You're wrong, because his gayness isn't something that hurts the family. You specifically presented an example of suffering inflicted on others by being homosexual, and when countered you are backing off of the fact that the infidelity is the real issue. Lame.

It isn't? You don't think the children are going to be confused about why daddy isn't living with mommy any more but with another man? You don't find that hurtful to the family? I know cheating with a woman wouldn't be any better but at least they would understand better if it were a woman instead of a man. That would mess up and be hurtful to the children. Not to mention the issue of AIDS and other STD's which are more prevelent in the homosexual lifestyle especially in male homosexually.

Quote:

Actual suffering is harming another in a manner which goes farther than just offending their sensibilities.

If that were the case then a whole lot of issues on the American plate such as political correctness would no be issues.

Quote:

You apparently don't understand the difference between 'demand' and 'ask or advise.' Jesus never once demanded anyone follow him, not once did he say 'you must follow me.'

Your sure about that? I seem to recall that the only way for Christians to get into heaven was to beleive and follow Jesus. If you don't beleive in and follow Jesus then that would make you something other then a Christian. Rememeber the root word of Christianity is Christ.

Quote:

You're wrong. Jesus in this example did allow her to continue her adulterous lifestyle. He merely advised her to change her lifestyle. He neither commanded nor demanded that she do so nor did he condemn her. Thanks for posting something which upholds my position so strongly.

One of the main tenants of Christianty when it comes to sin is to love the sinner and hate the sin. Christians can hate homosexuality but still love the people who practice it. To hate an act doesn't make you a bigot.

0 Replies

I never said it did; merely responding to the idea that Jesus demanded anyone do anything.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Gee, many of us know, love, are family of, are associated with, friends with, or are homosexual or somewhere else on the curve ourselves. That's why this affects us directly or indirectly or even conceptually. Well, that, and that a giant batch of folk are considered non grata for our armed forces when many of the questioned group are well qualified, disqualified as a group for rather blind reasons.

There is some considerable truth in your point osso. However, operating a ship, a squadron or a submarine under rather isolated conditions, and doing so with a very young crew and occasionally on missions involving great consequences and some risk, does involve some challenges and constraints that most of us don't encounter in our daily lives.

Many batches of folk are deemed non-qualified for various components of the military -- and for a host of physical and psychological issues over which they have no more control than this one. I agree that common sense practical criteria can easily morph into rigid expressions of huiman intolerance. However, that is not always the case -- sometimes it is just common sense.

I don't know all the details or context of the Pace comment, however, I don'r see it as the "moral" issue that some critics want to make it. This is an area in which most people are less than candid in their public expressions. The parade of political hypocrisy in response to the news storm over this matter is ample proof of that.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't know all the details or context of the Pace comment,

Thgis is all what was printed in the Chicago Tribune origianally, on Tuesday 13 March 2007, pages A1 & A4:

0 Replies

Thanks Walter.

It appears to me that the general is guilty of only a degree of consistency and candor that an all to hypocritical world is unaccustomed to.

Most people would agree that infidelity to a spouse is indicative of a degree of immorality - common though that may be. Certainly such acts are grist for the mill of political campaigns and the writings of political commentators. Much is made of Republican excesses in response to former President Clinton's foolishness. However they forget that the now sainted Barac Obama's ascent from the Illinois State Legislature to the U.S. Senate was facilitated by a similar marital scandal on the part of his Republican opponent, who, until then, was widely considered to have the election all but won.

I see nothing in the General's statements that are contrary to widely expressed public norms. His only fault was in saying it in a world too addicted to hypocrisy.

0 Replies

The Chicago Tribune even didn't attrack the attraction to this in their headline ...

However, I wonder what your comments in your last response have to do with those by General Pace.

Widespread norms are actually not what some think.

0 Replies

I definitely remember being in a firefight and yelling out "I don't want any fags covering my ass, only really straight guys should provide cover"

0 Replies

I don't follow your meaning, Walter. I believe my comments on the controversy are an accurate and complete summary of its (lack of) serious meaning or significance.

Dys,

Cute comment, but it has nothing at all to do with the valid point I made in the response to osso, and I think you know that.

0 Replies

I don't understand why it is considered impractical (oh, besides "immoral") to allow a whole group of humans otherwise well qualified into the armed forces.

They let male and female astronauts over the age of puberty glide in space together; admittedly some of them break some rules on the ground level. I don't get the practicality issue re what I must assume the fear is, the presence of sexual tension. Sexual relations with colleagues are often against the rules in the civilian as well as the military world. That doesn't mean that heterosexual women can't be hired in a corporation along with heterosexual male employees.

I am assuming, George, that you are not saying that homosexuals are unqualified as a group to be engineers, or navigators, and so on. You seem to be saying instead, that letting them work or fight side by side a person of their own sex is impractical.

0 Replies

I would think that it's a matter of keeping the soldiers focused on soldiering. Keep in mind that most soldiers enter right out of high school. You remember high school, right? Kids aren't exactly thoughtful people that are mindful of their actions and the results of their actions on others. Taunting, ridiculing those that are different etc. The idea behind "don't ask, don't tell" is sound. If you are a homosexual, just don't mention it. No one will ask you about it and keep your sexual activities to your private time.

That a General find homosexuality and adultery as being immoral should come as no surprise to anyone. Most likely a product of the 50's. Not exactly a time of loose morals. Many people find homosexuality to be immoral, just as many do not find it immoral.

The idea is to mold the youth entering the military into soldiers able and willing to die for their country. They shave their heads, to look the same. They wear the same uniforms, they eat the same food, they sleep in the same bunkhouses, they share the same workload they receive the same training. The idea is to build a cohesive army consisting of soldiers trained to follow orders and protect each other.

0 Replies

turn humans into killers in other words. Remove all individuality. the ultimate borg, all in the name of one God or another.

0 Replies

To bring this to a personal example, anecdotal of course, I'll mention a long time friend, a gay man who has been head of a major hospital emergency department for years. When I first knew him, he went from being a hospital intern to being an officer in one of the armed forces, until his duty time was over. I sincerely doubt he caused any trouble there. Of course, he and others like him had to be closed, closeted, about a major part of their humanness. He is both brave and highly competent. That the armed forces would have had reason(s) to fear him being among them would be funny if it weren't so sad.

It seems to me more that the fear (and the onus for it) should be of the potential bad behavior of ignorant bullies who happened to be heterosexual.

0 Replies

I don't understand why anyone cares. All these people who are so against homosexuality seem unable to stop talking about it....hmmmmm

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

turn humans into killers in other words. Remove all individuality. the ultimate borg, all in the name of one God or another.

No, not the name of one god or another, in the name of their country and their families.

I've never killed anyone or been shot at, though I have had MP's pointing their guns at me once, but I can't imagine that it would be an easy task to just take the average Joe off the street, put a uniform on him and tell him to go to war. The training and discipline they receive will save their lives should it become necessary for them to go to war. Unit cohesiveness and discipline is necessary despite your considering them "borg".

0 Replies

I see your point, McGentrix, but I don't buy that it has to be that way. It's a long time culture of instilling fear of so-called otherness, and then catering to that in the name of cohesion.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I don't understand why it is considered impractical (oh, besides "immoral") to allow a whole group of humans otherwise well qualified into the armed forces.

They let male and female astronauts over the age of puberty glide in space together; admittedly some of them break some rules on the ground level. I don't get the practicality issue re what I must assume the fear is, the presence of sexual tension. Sexual relations with colleagues are often against the rules in the civilian as well as the military world. That doesn't mean that heterosexual women can't be hired in a corporation along with heterosexual male employees.

I am assuming, George, that you are not saying that homosexuals are unqualified as a group to be engineers, or navigators, and so on. You seem to be saying instead, that letting them work or fight side by side a person of their own sex is impractical.

No. I am instead saying that life on a submarine that operates submerged and isolated from any outside contacts whatever for months at a time (or on an aircraft carrier that may spend 140 days at sea without seeing dry land), and in which the close relations with the people around you, in very confined physical conditions, transcent the ordinarily distinct compartments of our lives - work, social, friends, all the same people - , and that doing so with a crew whose median age is about 20, -- offers unique challenges that most of us don't encounter in our daily lives. I am saying that this combination of circumstances does indeed have the potential to create common sense, practical constraints that may not apply under more usual conditions.

0 Replies

And why is it different re the relation between males and females?

Besides that: most people don't live with all their superiors and all their "employes" under one roof - I did so 7/7. :wink:

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
I don't understand why it is considered impractical (oh, besides "immoral") to allow a whole group of humans otherwise well qualified into the armed forces.

They let male and female astronauts over the age of puberty glide in space together; admittedly some of them break some rules on the ground level. I don't get the practicality issue re what I must assume the fear is, the presence of sexual tension. Sexual relations with colleagues are often against the rules in the civilian as well as the military world. That doesn't mean that heterosexual women can't be hired in a corporation along with heterosexual male employees.

I am assuming, George, that you are not saying that homosexuals are unqualified as a group to be engineers, or navigators, and so on. You seem to be saying instead, that letting them work or fight side by side a person of their own sex is impractical.

No. I am instead saying that life on a submarine that operates submerged and isolated from any outside contacts whatever for months at a time (or on an aircraft carrier that may spend 140 days at sea without seeing dry land), and in which the close relations with the people around you, in very confined physical conditions, transcent the ordinarily distinct compartments of our lives - work, social, friends, all the same people - , and that doing so with a crew whose median age is about 20, -- offers unique challenges that most of us don't encounter in our daily lives. I am saying that this combination of circumstances does indeed have the potential to create common sense, practical constraints that may not apply under more usual conditions.

Can we forsee any time in the future in which problems such as these, won't be problems?

There must be procedures for dealing with the interaction between young men and women on both subs and aircraft carriers; I have a hard time seeing how this could not be suited to gays and straights - barring personal bigotry on the part of those making the rules, of course.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I would rather serve with a gay man on a sub than with a straight guy with homicidal tendencies.

0 Replies

I would be interested to know just how much experience onboard submarines and aircraft carriers those of you who comment so knowingly really have.

Problems arising from sexual liaisions (straight or gay) among partners in law firms, analysts in investment banks and even coworkers in offices are common enough already, Many require action by the organization or firm to undue the damage done. I have experienced these issues in the consulting business I run. Now imagine that the physical environment has been made much more physically confining and isolated from the world; that the work, social and, in effect family lives of the participants have been combined to a 24/7 situation; that the work group is very young and understandably lacking in maturity; and that there can be great operational and national consequences of their collective performance of a sometimes very difficult operational role. Now ask yourself if this combination of circumstances might create conditions to which your ordinary intuition just might not be particularly applicable.

0 Replies

Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know