|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Joint Chiefs Chair calls homosexuality immoral
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Joint Chiefs Chair calls homosexuality immoral
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| tommyp |
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ack=1&cset=true
Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'
By Aamer Madhani
Tribune national correspondent
Published March 12, 2007
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 homosexuality is "immoral" and on par with having an extramarital affair.
Addressing the controversial policy as part of a wide-ranging interview with the Tribune in Chicago, Pace said the military should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his "upbringing," in which certain types of conduct were thought to be immoral.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts...," Pace said, while also calling it immoral for military members to commit adultery with another service member's spouse. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in anyway.
In the interview, Pace also said that a provision in the House Democrats' proposal to wind down the war could hamper President Bush's planned troop "surge" in Iraq by creating gaps in troop levels.
The military's current policy on homosexuals is based on legislation signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 which states that gays and lesbians may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation private. Commanders may not ask, and gay service members may not tell.
Supporters argue it is necessary to maintain the cohesion of U.S. troops, but critics condemn it as discriminatory. The policy has come into question once again as the Pentagon and Congress grapple with a military stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops have been discharged because of the policy. Among those discharged were more than 322 linguists, including 54 Arabic specialists, according to the Government Accountability Office report.
"The real question is: what is moral about discharging qualified linguists during a time of war simply for being gay or lesbian?" said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group. "Our military needs the best qualified men and women who are willing to serve in the military, protect our freedoms and preserve our American values of equality."
About 23 percent of troops say they know for sure that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, according to a Zogby International poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan that was published in December. About 55 percent of the troops who know a gay peer said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well known by others.
Last month, Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) revived the debate by introducing legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly serving homosexuals. Meehan's proposal has 106 sponsors, including six Republicans. Meehan and gay rights organizations have expressed hope of reversing the policy now that Democrats are in charge of the House and Senate.
The issue is also starting to percolate in the 2008 presidential campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), a longtime foe of the policy her husband signed into law, has stated that it should repealed. Sen. Sam Brownback ( R-Kan.), says a repeal would be ill-advised. |
|
|
| Glenda Yenta |
| I wonder if the General feels the killing of Iraqi civilians is immoral. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
| ...see guys, zimmie, veguteric, NCDike, and Stumpy wouldn't be allowed to enlist anyway. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
The Army is a little behind the times, they almost always are.
I imagine when the Left champions beastiality that the military will shun it for awhile and then all of a sudden sheep will be on military bases worldwide.
Maybe incest and polygamy will be "normal" someday too. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stumpedwall
Maybe incest and polygamy will be "normal" someday too. |
.
...it IS (at least in some areas of the U.S. south and mid-west). We see the results in current voters/supporters of the republican party (AKA "Stupid White Men")...
*badumpdump*
:rdf:
__________________
"Let us cross over the river and corn-hole each other under the shade of the trees." Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Whackson...jerkin' it since 1869
. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Army is a little behind the times, they almost always are.
I imagine when the Left champions beastiality that the military will shun it for awhile and then all of a sudden sheep will be on military bases worldwide.
Maybe incest and polygamy will be "normal" someday too. |
ok bill o'reilly - beastiality and incest should be illegal - no reason polygamy and being gay should be - you really don't get the difference? |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
ok bill o'reilly - beastiality and incest should be illegal - no reason polygamy and being gay should be - you really don't get the difference? |
Why should bestiality and incest be illegal? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Why should bestiality and incest be illegal? |
.
...To save Republicans from themselves???
__________________
"Let us cross over the river and corn-hole each other under the shade of the trees." Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Whackson...jerkin' it since 1869
. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Why should bestiality and incest be illegal? |
incest takes away someone's personal and individual rights - the assumption is that they are under 18 - I suppose once you're 18+ you can have sex with any other 18+ family member you'd like - bestiality takes away the rights of the animal - but I'm a animal rights leaning kinda guy so I suppose you could build a case to fuck your favorite dog if you'd like - I'm just against it |
|
|
| Reed Rothchild |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Army is a little behind the times, they almost always are.
I imagine when the Left champions beastiality that the military will shun it for awhile and then all of a sudden sheep will be on military bases worldwide.
Maybe incest and polygamy will be "normal" someday too. |
Was wondering when former Sen. Santorum would show up here. |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
| Well the general WAS just parroting Army policy. What else is he supposed to do? |
|
|
| patcracker |
Quote: Originally posted by johnsonrod
Well the general WAS just parroting Army policy. What else is he supposed to do? |
Well put. Just because you "dont ask ,dont tell" doesnt mean that everyone goes along with it. Im not as concerned with a General saying than I am with a politician. This man has to command his troops to kill the enemy and to do that with the utmost precision he has to have his Army trained and have cohesion. He is parroting what needs to be said to keep his Army sharp. |
|
|
| BigBaldy |
Well, there are clearly very valid medical reasons for banning incest. Where would the country be if, theoretically, a product of incest with limited intellect and virtually non-existent communications skills became President!
Legislating morality is just stupid. (and before some idiot says "killing is immoral, should that be legal, too?" I'm talking about otherwise victimless situations like homosexuality) |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by BigBaldy
Well, there are clearly very valid medical reasons for banning incest. Where would the country be if, theoretically, a product of incest with limited intellect and virtually non-existent communications skills became President!
Legislating morality is just stupid. (and before some idiot says "killing is immoral, should that be legal, too?" I'm talking about otherwise victimless situations like homosexuality) |
I agree. Although MSNBC just did a report that children born of incest are not really that likely to have birth defects at all. That said if two consenting adults decide they want to do it and happen to be related I'm not sure you can say they can't. And if they decide to procreate how is it any worse than two non-related people with the same blood time doing it, or a parent with AIDS, or VD, or whatever? I'm not saying I'm comfortable with it - I'm not comfortable with saying that consenting adults are consenting adults. Leave it at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
