Gen. Pace weighs in on gays in the military

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I've never thought about that.  Someone in the military, a person who kills or supports killing, calling a harmless act immoral!  

Now I don't like killing, unless the world is better off without that person.  But the fact of the matter is that more innocent civilians die in wars than combatants.  

I still find open homosexuality slightly unacceptable, but what other people want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, has no bearing on my action.  But for old Ticket-Puncher Pace to call an act like that immoral, while he knew what war was like (he served in Vietnam), thats just hypocrisy.

Pace, don't forget, you serve us, the civilian government, not the other way around.

It's not harmless when it takes place under tight living conditions between two people of the same unit.

I had that happen in one of my flights (I am a USAF instructor a flight is eequiv to a platoon) and it nearly tore the flight apart as far as moral goes.

I could tell both were gay from the begining and I had no problem with it.  The fact that they were caught in the same bed while in basic military training is a problem.

again you can be gay but not open about it.  The policy works, no one is being turned away unless they want to be.

The mantra "good potential recruits that could help fill the ranks of needed jobs are being turned away because of their homosexuality" is rubbish propaganda.  NOT ONCE ARE YOU ASKED DURING THE RECRUITING PROCESS IF YOU ARE GAY OR EVER COMMITTED ANY HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Kieran
I wouldn't go as far as "plenty". In fact, any Christian religion that actually uses the Old Testament would most definitely be against homosexuality. Homosexuality is referred to as an "abomination".

What that means is a Christian that uses the Old Testament cannot support any law that forwards the cause of homosexuality, as it would be going against God.

I know the Episcopalien church has recently allowed openly homosexual priests, but that has caused a huge rift within the church itself. Aside from that, I don't know of any mainstream Christian religion that is okey-dokey with homosexuality.

Within every church there are many folks who believe exactly what their church tells them to believe.  There are also many who disagree with some things that their church stands by.  Just because a church has a stance against homosexuality does not mean that every member believes and supports the position.  I know many folks who are involved in their churches, yet have their own beliefs that contradict their church.  Likewise, there are many nonreligious folks with no church affiliation who are anti-gay for their own reasons.  Many people are just not so simple.

[Thrawn]

Cripes, if we legalize pot the country will fall apart, if we allow gay marriage the country will fall part, if we allow gays to openly serve in the military it will fall apart.


What a bunch of total and complete fear mongering bull****.  You people do realize that other countries have already done all this, and it made not a sweet ****ing lick of difference.  There was no Armageddon,  people woke up the next day and realized it was really no big freaking deal.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Cripes, if we legalize pot the country will fall apart, if we allow gay marriage the country will fall part, if we allow gays to openly serve in the military it will fall apart.


What a bunch of total and complete fear mongering bull****.  You people do realize that other countries have already done all this, and it made not a sweet ****ing lick of difference.  There was no Armageddon,  people woke up the next day and realized it was really no big freaking deal.

Do realize you are the only one in the thread that is fear mongering?  No one else in here has stated such things.


PS

For others it's not Irony, it's hipocracy.

[DREDIOCK]

Rep. Martin Meehan, who has introduced legislation to repeal the current policy, criticized Pace's comments "General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military,"

Heh

I'd be wiling to bet that if the public were asked about it he would be proven wrong as to a majority.

It isnt that most people dont think its immoral.
Its just that most people dont care or think its worth arguing about

[bj229r]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
But for old Ticket-Puncher Pace to call an act like that immoral, while he knew what war was like (he served in Vietnam), thats just hypocrisy.

General Pace's personal decorations include: Defense Distinguished Service Medal, with two oak leaf clusters; Defense Superior Service Medal; the Legion of Merit; Bronze Star Medal with Combat V; the Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Meritorious Service Medal with gold star; Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V"; Navy Achievement Medal with gold star; and the Combat Action Ribbon.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by eskimo2
Suppose he said that he thought Jews were immoral?  What if he stated that in his opinion that blacks weren’t smart?  If you were black or Jewish would you want someone who stated such as your leader?

but Homos arent black or Jewish...well ok Some of them are
but not as a whole.

Being black is a race. Being jewish is a Religeon.

Homosexuals are only birth defects.

the stats back me up

Percentage of the population that is gay, around 5%
Chances of having a child with a birth defect...Around 5%


now take into account that while most gays may very well be born gay (defect) there is a certain segment that chooses to be gay.
remove that segment and  the Gay population probably falls well into the birth defect percentage.

Not saying anything is wrong with it.
For those born that way it is as normal for them to be that way as it is for someone with 6 toes, to have 6 toes. Or for someone who is not that way to not be that way.

they always were the  way they are. so to them its normal.

In any event, he has the right to hold any opinion on anyone. black, white,Jewish, christian. Gay. As he wants. so long as by action he doesnt nothing to harm any of them because of that opinion

[quintv]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Cripes, if we legalize pot the country will fall apart, if we allow gay marriage the country will fall part, if we allow gays to openly serve in the military it will fall apart.

There is a certain arrogance in the U.S. Many nations in the West allow homosexuals to openly serve in their military's, without any real issue (at least none that I am aware off), and yet we keep arguing about how it will effect our military as though the issue is completely unknown.

The fact is there are many homosexuals in the military. Why do people oppose them allowing to actually use the correct pronoun when talking about their personal lives? How would this be so crippling? God forbid a Marine not have to throw an 'S' to the 'HE' whenever talking about his partner. I can see how this would hand our nuclear weapons over to Al Qaeda.

But lets stop talking reasonably, thats no fun:


OOOOOMMMMMMMGGGGG ITS GONNA DESTRAH R MILITARY! DE QUEERS WANT TO MOLEST TEH SOLDIERS! PINK UNIFORMS< OH NOES!!

DEY TUK OUR JOBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[storch]

I was listening to the comedy channel on XM.  I forgot which puerto rican comic did this joke but the topic was gays in the military.  he said that if he was involved in a shooting war he would want some guy to be in love with him, saying to him "don't worry baby ain't nobody gonna touch you, they gotta come through me"  I was   so there we have another angle which most of us don't think about.        

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by quintv
There is a certain arrogance in the U.S. Many nations in the West allow homosexuals to openly serve in their military's, without any real issue (at least none that I am aware off), and yet we keep arguing about how it will effect our military as though the issue is completely unknown.

The fact is there are many homosexuals in the military. Why do people oppose them allowing to actually use the correct pronoun when talking about their personal lives? How would this be so crippling? God forbid a Marine not have to throw an 'S' to the 'HE' whenever talking about his partner. I can see how this would hand our nuclear weapons over to Al Qaeda.

But lets stop talking reasonably, thats no fun:


OOOOOMMMMMMMGGGGG ITS GONNA DESTRAH R MILITARY! DE QUEERS WANT TO MOLEST TEH SOLDIERS! PINK UNIFORMS< OH NOES!!

DEY TUK OUR JOBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because we are not other countries.
At the moment Its probably safer for gays to adhere to the dont ask dont tell policy for their own safety.

Maybe in 20-30 years it wont be such an issue and thus wont be a problem.
while its certainly less of an issue now then it would have been say 20 years ago
We aint there yet

Personally I'd rather have gays in the military then women

[Kieran]

Originally posted by eskimo2
Within every church there are many folks who believe exactly what their church tells them to believe.  There are also many who disagree with some things that their church stands by.  Just because a church has a stance against homosexuality does not mean that every member believes and supports the position.  I know many folks who are involved in their churches, yet have their own beliefs that contradict their church.  Likewise, there are many nonreligious folks with no church affiliation who are anti-gay for their own reasons.  Many people are just not so simple.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your ideas, it does not constitute "many" in the context necessary to reflect the positive numbers represented in the poll.

I mean, I understand some Catholics aren't all that big on the Pope being the main conduit to God, but if you are Catholic, it's that black-and-white. So, either you're Catholic or you're not. Pope says homosexuality is wrong, as far as you're concerned, it's wrong. Unless you don't mind being excommunicated.

Protestant religions tend to leave the interpretation of God's word more up to the individual, but only to a point. Some churches disagree on many points of the Bible, but again, only to a point. You see, the Bible is very, very clear on some issues. Homosexuality is one of those issues. It is not described allegorically, metaphorically, as a euphamism, nothing. It is plainly and simply referred to as an abomination, one of very few things so clearly defined.

I have often challenged folks to find me anywhere in the Bible where homosexuality is deemed okay by God, and I've yet to see anyone accept that challenge. Know why? Because they know they can't. Show me a verse that kind of talks about tolerance (in some vague, roundabout way) and I'll show you one that directly specifies God's feelings on it.

Anyway... Bible lesson aside... Christians don't oppose homosexuality based on latent homosexual feelings (as another poster suggested), rather it is a direct message from God himself that homosexuality is wrong. A Christian cannot support any law that supports homosexuality on that basis.

[quintv]

Because we are not other countries.
At the moment Its probably safer for gays to adhere to the dont ask dont tell policy for their own safety.

Maybe in 20-30 years it wont be such an issue and thus wont be a problem.
while its certainly less of an issue now then it would have been say 20 years ago
We aint there yet

Personally I'd rather have gays in the military then women

It seems an awful lot like you are saying that on average American soldiers are, from a maturity standpoint, a generation behind the rest of the west. I disagree.  A lot of parts of this nation  are admittedly, hmmm, shall we say quaint in their views. But I give our soldiers more credit than that, I think they are more than capable of rising to a level of maturity demonstrated by soldiers elsewhere in the west.

For those who are just simply intolerant, you don't tackle that sort of  attitude with trickle-down morality, you face it head on on deal with it where it presents itself.

Just one mans opinion. And I'm not touching the part about women in the military (though if by that you mean in combat positions, then we agree,)

[Kieran]

Thrawn, Quintv,

Seriously, why go all hyperbolic like that? Crazy. It's as if you think that if you reframe your losing arguments like those opposed to you are crazy, then you win? If so, declare yourselves winners and be done with it.

I can only state my basis for not supporting homosexuality. Accept it or don't, but spare me the "OMIGOSH, THE WORLD IS GONNA END" crap. I said nothing like it, nor did any other poster opposed to you in viewpoint.

[Chairboy]

Kieran, if I recall, the main part of the bible that condemns homosexuality is the same part that forbids shaving, gives advice pertaining to sex with slaves, talks about stoning blasphemers to death, and so on.  Is all of that still in effect too?

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by -dead-
Mmm the delicious irony of someone who kills for money saying homosexuality is immoral...

Irony is a communist thinking he has a soap box on which to tell others about morality.