revel wrote:Thomas it really does not matter if he was arguing from the Bible or not, the fact is that he used his own moral value system as a justification to continue the policy of not allowing gay members to openly be themselves which is forcing his own value system onto others by policy.
No. He used his own moral value system as a justification of his opinion about "don't ask, don't tell". Just as you use your own moral value system to justify your opinion about "don't ask don't tell". In your case as in his, this is perfectly fine.
revel wrote:If you going to argue you agree with the don't ask don't tell policy because of the morality issue at least be consistent and include all immoral acts.
He did include all immoral acts. But he was specifically asked about gays in the military, so gays in the military was the only immoral act (as he defines 'immoral') that he specifically mentioned.
revel wrote:I think the whole morally issue in the military is outdated and needs to be changed. I mean what are we, the Taliban?
Good question. Why don't you try living under the Taliban for a while, then tell us how they compare to America?
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts "are immoral," akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.
Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.
"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said.
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy caused an uproar in the military when signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. At the time, supporters of the policy inside and outside the military argued that it was essential for the cohesion of combat units, not a question of morality.
Under the policy, gays and lesbians may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts. Their commanders may not ask about their orientation.
Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University who was instrumental in helping the Pentagon craft the "don't ask, don't tell" law, said it is unusual for a top commander to use morality as a justification for the policy. But he said he has repeatedly heard enlisted members use that reasoning when opposing gays in the military.
"With the enlisted, it's a question of cohesion, but morality is something they always bring up," said Moskos, who declined to comment specifically on Pace's remarks.
I imagine some people see that as hypercritical.
When he was talking about justifying his opinion of policy he said he felt the same way about "so and so" sleeping with someone else's wife. He didn't mention just two unmarried heterosexuals having sexual relations so he didn't include all immoral acts.
If I was a reporter I would have followed up with asking how he felt about unmarried sexual acts between straights.
Regardless of extreme the taliban is, the fact is they enforce morality laws. So does the military.
Well, I got to get ready for Church.
revel wrote:When he was talking about justifying his opinion of policy he said he felt the same way about "so and so" sleeping with someone else's wife. He didn't mention just two unmarried heterosexuals having sexual relations so he didn't include all immoral acts.
Pace was specifically asked about gays in the military. He answered with a general point about immoral acts, as he defines them, and with one example of a heterosexual immoral act. And that's enough. Given the questions he was asked, Pace was under no obligation to supply a list of all immoral acts, as he defines them.
revel wrote:If I was a reporter I would have followed up with asking how he felt about unmarried sexual acts between straights.
Good question. Take it up with the press corps. Their negligence in following it up is theirs, not Pace's.
revel wrote:Regardless of extreme the taliban is, the fact is they enforce morality laws. So does the military.
So do a lot of laws. When your framers declared that all men are created equal, that they have inalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they were cramming their morality down the throats of the king, and their fellow Englishmen. When the Supreme Court declared that segreagated D.C. schools violate due process, they took a position on morality. The same when the American supreme Court weighed a women's liberty over an embryo's life, and the German constitutional court weighed an embryo's life over a woman's liberty. There are issues on which you cannot legislate at all without taking a stand on contentious questions of morality.
revel wrote:Well, I got to get ready for Church.
Enjoy the sermon -- but don't accept candy from the priest, and don't let him lure you into the sacristy.
But anyway, The failures in Iraq had less to do with the Military aspects of the strategy than the absence of a political or strategic context in which to apply military action.
)
georgeob1 wrote:The failures in Iraq had less to do with the Military aspects of the strategy than the absence of a political or strategic context in which to apply military action.
Or in other words, Joschka Fischer and I were right about America's case for going to war, and Colin Powell and you were wrong. This wasn't just politicking on Fischer's part. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist rubbing this in one more time.
