Gen. Pace weighs in on gays in the military

[Gunthr]

LOL Eagler

Chair, i cant think of too many things that would be more blood curdling than facing a military phalanx  of screaming homos, jews, blacks, mormons, transexuals, bisexuals and crossdressers.  I'd run.  

seriously, i don't think it is a civil right or constitutional right to serve in the us military...

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Gunthr
Chair, i cant think of too many things that would be more blood curdling than facing a military phalanx  of screaming homos, jews, blacks, mormons, transexuals, bisexuals and crossdressers.  I'd run.  

seriously, i don't think it is a civil right or constitutional right to serve in the us military...

That's certainly an unexpected level of frankness, but I think I'll have to disagree.  I believe that blacks, females, jews, homosexuals, and mormons are absolutely entitled to serve if they wish to.  The service they offer their country is no less welcome than that of the all white, male army of yesteryear your post seems to advocate.

It's unusual to see someone so forthright about their disapproval of these changes that have been made over the past half century, I admire your candor even if I vehemently disagree with your assertions regarding race, sex, and sexual preference and the military.

[DYNAMITE]

Chair, i cant think of too many things that would be more blood curdling than facing a military phalanx of screaming homos, jews, blacks, mormons, transexuals, bisexuals and crossdressers. I'd run.  

wow

[quintv]

Originally posted by Eagler

I lol'ed.

[quintv]

Originally posted by Chairboy
That's certainly an unexpected level of frankness, but I think I'll have to disagree.  I believe that blacks, females, jews, homosexuals, and mormons are absolutely entitled to serve if they wish to.  The service they offer their country is no less welcome than that of the all white, male army of yesteryear your post seems to advocate.

It's unusual to see someone so forthright about their disapproval of these changes that have been made over the past half century, I admire your candor even if I vehemently disagree with your assertions regarding race, sex, and sexual preference and the military.

It rears its head from time to time. In general people have become more sophisticated in their ability to obfuscate their private fears and prejudices with layers of feigned concern for the general good or baseless hypotheticals of ill fortune. Not because they want too mind you, I'm sure they'd rather be more blunt, but because the public generally doesn't tolerate naked prejudice.

There is a significant portion of people who simply don't like Gays, don't want to be near them, and don't want to serve with them in the military or deal with them outside of it. They are made uncomfortable by them, period. This just happens to be a front in their reactionary war.

Time isn't on their side though.

[Gunthr]

It's unusual to see someone so forthright about their disapproval of these changes that have been made over the past half century, I admire your candor even if I vehemently disagree with your assertions regarding race, sex, and sexual preference and the military.

My assertion was about what i would consider bloodcurdling on the battlefield if we combined all of your examples into one military formation.  if you don't agree, well...  

[Curval]

Originally posted by Kieran
As opposed to, say, labeling "right wing Christians"?

Interesting...

As long as you don't bash gays or anything.

Oh absolutely.  

Not only do I label all right wing Christians I actually start thread after thread about them, how bad they are, how hypocritical they are and how disgusting I find their behaviour.  I never react...only attack.

I don't hate right wing Christians though...just their behaviour.

[myelo]

When someone is named Peter Pace, it's really hard for me to take anything he's says about homosexuality seriously.

[lazs2]

curval.. you have every right to use labels like right wing christian or neocon or whatever... just as the general has a right to label gays as immoral gays...

You guys just look kinda stupid doing it to some folks and like heroes to others.

I don't think gays should serve with the rank and file.   As medical or office personnel where they would not have to bunk or shower with others that would be fine.   I don't see how we have a shortage of medical or office personnel tho in any case.

lazs

[quintv]

Originally posted by lazs2

I don't think gays should serve with the rank and file.   As medical or office personnel where they would not have to bunk or shower with others that would be fine.   I don't see how we have a shortage of medical or office personnel tho in any case.

lazs

They already are serving in the rank and file. Their ranks include men who have been decorated for service in combat and not a few purple heart recipients. But I suppose they're blood isn't good enough, after all making sure a few people aren't uncomfortable is really what our Military is about.

The Washington post says it better:

 

ARMY SGT. ROBERT Stout received a Purple Heart after an exploding grenade in Iraq last May left shrapnel in his face, arm and legs. He would like to remain in the military, and he said in an interview that he would reenlist were it not for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But Sgt. Stout is through denying that he is gay, so he recently declared his sexual orientation to the Associated Press. Now he'll be lucky if he's allowed to serve out his tour, which ends in May, without being kicked out of the service. For under U.S. policy, even the most decorated and patriotic gay soldier is just a homosexual to be rooted out at the military's earliest convenience.

The military wastes a lot of money making sure that gay soldiers are either deeply closeted or ex-soldiers. According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the services have spent $190 million recruiting and training replacements for gay service members kicked out during the past 10 years. More than 750 of the 9,488 men and women discharged from the military during that time, moreover, "held critical occupations"; many had training in languages important to the war on terrorism. The gay ban, in other words, is as self-defeating as it is demeaning to people who want to serve their country at a time of great need. It is long past time for it to go.

Last month, Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) introduced a bill that would repeal "don't ask, don't tell." It now has 72 co-sponsors, including three Republicans. The House leadership's commitment to the current policy makes quick passage improbable. Supporters are fighting at this stage for a hearing, which would help their cause, because there are no good arguments for keeping patriotic men and women out of honorable service because of their sexual orientation. There's no evidence that gay soldiers undermine military discipline or perform badly. American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan fight alongside allied forces that don't discriminate.

Yet as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) put it to the Miami Herald in explaining her decision to back the bill: "We investigate people. Bring them up on charges. Basically wreck their lives." These are "people who've signed up to serve our country. We ought to be thanking them." She's right. Who dares tell Sgt. Stout that he is unfit for service?

[Torque]

he is not much of a thinker tho, by extention then cheney is immoral, or he supports such immoral behaviour.

[Kieran]

Originally posted by Curval
Oh absolutely.  

Not only do I label all right wing Christians I actually start thread after thread about them, how bad they are, how hypocritical they are and how disgusting I find their behaviour.  I never react...only attack.

I don't hate right wing Christians though...just their behaviour.

See, right there it is bro... the venom you accuse the right of. That's okay, because you are "progressive".

Now on the off chance this was all some kind of sarcastic message, which I doubt, I'd retract some of my thoughts on this. However knowing you as I do I'll assume you meant it for the most part.

Really, my feelings aren't hurt over being called a right-winger. I gotta be called something, might as well be that. What is irritating how many of your side of the argument feel it's perfectly fine for YOU to label someone, but it's awful for the other side to do the same, even a grievous harm- dangerous!

I also find it interesting when I go to great lengths to explain the Biblical approach to homosexuality, and that it isn't a "hate" issue, none of that ever gets through. Know why? People like you don't want to hear that. No, it's better to scream "homophobe", "hypocrit", or "right-winger", thus ending all meaningful discussion.

You (and many like you) don't want a discussion; you want an unconditional surrender to your value system. Fine. But I'll tell ya this... when I'm in a discussion with someone and they throw out the words bigot, right-winger, or homophobe, I know I've won. Those are fallback phrases for someone who's already lost the argument. That's the way it is because of the Left's penchant for using those labels straight out of the gate during a discussion.

Anyone who allows such labels to cow them into submission doesn't really believe in anything as far as I'm concerned.

[Furious]

so, is there no such thing as a bigot?  a homophobe? a rightwinger?

...sometimes ya say them 'cause they are true.  sometimes.

anyway, i am late to this game, but if a homosexual wants to fight and die for this country, then i say more power to 'em.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Kieran
That's the way it is because of the Left's penchant for using those labels straight out of the gate during a discussion.

LOL

Pot meet keetle.

"I also find it interesting when I go to great lengths to explain the Biblical approach to homosexuality, and that it isn't a "hate" issue, none of that ever gets through. Know why? People like you don't want to hear that. No, it's better to scream "homophobe", "hypocrit", or "right-winger", thus ending all meaningful discussion."

You say the Bible is the definative word of God.  I say the Bible is a collection of writings by men that has been cherry picked for centuries.  THAT is why no matter how much you try and "educate me" on the bible I'm never going to buy into it hook line and sinker the way you do.

"You (and many like you) don't want a discussion; you want an unconditional surrender to your value system. Fine. But I'll tell ya this... when I'm in a discussion with someone and they throw out the words bigot, right-winger, or homophobe, I know I've won. Those are fallback phrases for someone who's already lost the argument."

You have won squat.  I don't want unconditional surrender of anything.  All I ever do in these types of threads is push back against the thought that you and many others here are on a higher moral ground than someone because they are gay.  I don't see you disagreeing with anyone who attacks gays with the venom I see on these boards.  In that regard I think of you as particularly unchristian despite how you seem to feel yourself having superior knowledge on the subject.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by 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.

There is no honest debate or reasonableness when discussing the freaking oppression of people based on them being homosexuals.  I reject the premise totally, and it deserves no more than derision and contempt.  To do otherwise is give any sort of standing.  

You have your religious beliefs, and that's fine...until the time you either directly or indirectly through your political representative try to force others to live by it's tenets.  You have indicated in past that you have no problem doing this.  At really, kind of discourse can one have with a theocrat anyway?...at least in the realm political.