Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

[Hatuey]

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News
...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?

Do they allow adulterers to openly adulter?

 

[Duke]

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News



...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?

Yeah, and so should people who eat shellfish, and anyone else who isn't a good Christian and doesn't follow the Ten Commandments. Speaking of which, those Commandments don't happen to say anything about killing, would they? The Army might have something to say about that, something that they have business talking about.


Duke

 

[26 X World Champs]

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News

...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?

Imagine what he thinks of Gay Adulterers? How about teenagers who fool around behind their lovers back, does that make them Teenerers?

 

[Duke]

The headline alone brings some questions to my mind. Why should anyone care what a general has to say about morals? Wherefore is a military general in a position to be telling people what's moral or what's immoral? But no, General Pace has certain powers vested in him that give him an opportunity to judge homosexuals, a power a man of his nature should never be given in the first place.


Duke

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So, General Pace thinks that homosexuality is immoral. I think that General Pace is a complete moron for making headlines by announcing his morality.

I win.

 

[Kandahar]

The headline alone brings some questions to my mind. Why should anyone care what a general has to say about morals? Wherefore is a military general in a position to be telling people what's moral or what's immoral? But no, General Pace has certain powers vested in him that give him an opportunity to judge homosexuals, a power a man of his nature should never be given in the first place.


Duke

Meh. Just because some old blowhard general thinks it's immoral doesn't really mean much. He doesn't have any power to "judge" them, apart from enforcing the existing policy that he didn't write. This hardly seems like it calls into question his ability to perform his job. He certainly can't be expected to live up to the same degree of political correctness we expect from our politicians; he's probably not accustomed to press conferences and TV interviews.

 

[Hatuey]

Meh. Just because some old blowhard general thinks it's immoral doesn't really mean much. He doesn't have any power to "judge" them, apart from enforcing the existing policy that he didn't write. This hardly seems like it calls into question his ability to perform his job. He certainly can't be expected to live up to the same degree of political correctness we expect from our politicians; he's probably not accustomed to press conferences and TV interviews.

Aren't the chiefs of staffs the guys who came up with the DADT?

 

[WI Crippler]

Aren't the chiefs of staffs the guys who came up with the DADT?

I don't know, but this policy was in place prior to Gen. Pace being appointed to JCS.

 

[Hatuey]

I don't know, but this policy was in place prior to Gen. Pace being appointed to JCS.

For some reasons it wouldn't be surprising if other members of the JCS had this opinion when talking about homosexuality.

 

[WI Crippler]

For some reasons it wouldn't be surprising if other members of the JCS had this opinion when talking about homosexuality.

Who knows?

 

[Hatuey]

Who knows?

Well now we know personal bigotry has played some small role in this whole DADT thing. It's just an educated guess I had in my mind for a while. This confirms it to some degree.

 

[Kelzie]

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News



...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?

Actually adultry is not allowed in the military. If you are discovered, you can be busted down to private, thrown in the brig, or dishonarably discharged...or all three.

A little dramatic for something that happens on a fairly regular basis, but no one's ever accused the military of forward thinking.

 

[Goobieman]

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News
...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?

Gotta laugh at people who get all indignant when someone esposes a moral position they dont agree with -- especially when those same people get all defensive when someone gets indignant with their own moral positions.

Who are you to judge his morality?

 

[Kelzie]

Gotta laugh at people who get all indignant when someone esposes a moral position they dont agree with -- especially when those same people get all defensive when someone gets indignant with their own moral positions.

Who are you to judge his morality?

Moral relativism is a crock. If he sat there saying he saw no problem with pedophilia, you and I would be sitting here judging his morals all day. There are some things we can agree are wrong. Everything else...well we come to this site and bicker about it. :lol:

 

[Goobieman]

Aren't the chiefs of staffs the guys who came up with the DADT?

DADT was the brainchild of the Clinton Administration, and was enacted into law in 1993.

If you don't like the policy, blame him, and the Democrats.

 

[Goobieman]

Moral relativism is a crock. If he sat there saying he saw no problem with pedophilia, you and I would be sitting here judging his morals all day. There are some things we can agree are wrong. Everything else...well we come to this site and bicker about it. :lol:

:lol:

I think the point is that he has a right to his moral beliefs just as you do -- and if you don't want YOUR moral beliefs called into question, don't question those of others.

"Homosexuality is wrong" is no different than "homosexuality is OK".

 

[Kelzie]

:lol:

I think the point is that he has a right to his moral beliefs just as you do -- and if you don't want YOUR moral beliefs called into question, don't question those of others.

"Homosexuality is wrong" is no different than "homosexuality is OK".

Does he? "Pedophilia is wrong" is no different that "pedophilia is OK?"

I think he is wrong. I can defend my moral position with logic, just like I could defend the position that pedophilia is wrong. There is no logical reason why homosexuality is immoral, he just doesn't like it because of the way he was brought up.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

:lol:

I think the point is that he has a right to his moral beliefs just as you do -- and if you don't want YOUR moral beliefs called into question, don't question those of others.

"Homosexuality is wrong" is no different than "homosexuality is OK".

Everyone has a right to their own moral beliefs. However, one person's particular views of morality shouldn't dictate law. What makes his moral views superior to the views of others? I'm not saying that his views are dictating law in any way, but people get understandably defensive when someone in a relatively high position says this kind of stuff. Religion shouldn't dictate politics and politics shouldn't dictate religion.

 

[Goobieman]

Everyone has a right to their own moral beliefs. However, one person's particular views of morality shouldn't dictate law.

Good news -- it doesn't. DADT is federal law.

What makes his moral views superior to the views of others?

Its equally superior to the moral position that homosexuality -isn't- immoral.

I'm not saying that his views are dictating law in any way, but people get understandably defensive when someone in a relatively high position says this kind of stuff. Religion shouldn't dictate politics and politics shouldn't dictate religion.

And yet, we have DADT. Isn't that the legal imposition of a moral standard?

 

[rivrrat]

Moral relativism is a crock. If he sat there saying he saw no problem with pedophilia, you and I would be sitting here judging his morals all day. There are some things we can agree are wrong. Everything else...well we come to this site and bicker about it. :lol:

A large number of people agreeing that something is "right" or "wrong" does not exclude it from being morally relative.

The people of this country used to overwhelmingly believe it was "okay" for adult men to marry 13 year olds. Now we consider that "pedophilia".

It's all relative.

 

[Goobieman]

Does he? "Pedophilia is wrong" is no different that "pedophilia is OK?"

As you noted, some things we all agree on and some things we don't.
When its not cut and dried, like pedophilia, then its just a clash of opinions.

You have yours and he has his. If you question his moral position, don't get upset when someone questions yours. I'm not saying YOU do, but others certainly do...

 

[Kelzie]

A large number of people agreeing that something is "right" or "wrong" does not exclude it from being morally relative.

The people of this country used to overwhelmingly believe it was "okay" for adult men to marry 13 year olds. Now we consider that "pedophilia".

It's all relative.

A large number of people believing something has nothing to do with it. Moral relativism is the belief that everyone has different morals and all different sets of moral values are correct.

I think that's bull. Pedophilia cannot be both moral and immoral. That is logically impossible. There is a right value for everything and if you cannot defend your position logically, it's a good sign you might be on the wrong side of the fence.

There is no logical reason homosexuality is immoral. There is quite a good deal of logical evidence that suggests, while it might not be moral (moral is a strong word), it's at the very least neutral.

 

[Kelzie]

As you noted, some things we all agree on and some things we don't.
When its not cut and dried, like pedophilia, then its just a clash of opinions.

You have yours and he has his. If you question his moral position, don't get upset when someone questions yours. I'm not saying YOU do, but others certainly do...

Pedophilia is not cut and dry to some. Would you call it a clash of opinions?

I don't think there are any opinions here. He's wrong. If you could provide some sort of logical reasoning that suggests he is correct, I'd be willing to consider that he and I are just disagreeing.

 

[Goobieman]

Pedophilia is not cut and dry to some. Would you call it a clash of opinions?

You mentioned cut and dried, and that some things are and some arent. Please feel free to swap out 'pedophilia' with whatever you think is cut and dried.

I don't think there are any opinions here. He's wrong.

"He's wrong" is an opinion.

If you could provide some sort of logical reasoning that suggests he is correct,

Its his personal belief. He doesnt have to prove anything to you or anyone else to hold it, and to espouse it.