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.
Do they allow adulterers to openly adulter?Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News
...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?
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?Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News
...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?
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.
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.
For some reasons it wouldn't be surprising if other members of the JCS had this opinion when talking about homosexuality.
Who knows?
Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News
...should adulterers be barred from joining the army then?
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?
DADT was the brainchild of the Clinton Administration, and was enacted into law in 1993.Aren't the chiefs of staffs the guys who came up with the DADT?
:lol: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".
: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".
Good news -- it doesn't. DADT is federal law.Everyone has a right to their own moral beliefs. However, one person's particular views of morality shouldn't dictate law.
Its equally superior to the moral position that homosexuality -isn't- immoral.What makes his moral views superior to the views of others?
And yet, we have DADT. Isn't that the legal imposition of a moral standard?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.
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:
As you noted, some things we all agree on and some things we don't.Does he? "Pedophilia is wrong" is no different that "pedophilia is OK?"
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.
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...
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.Pedophilia is not cut and dry to some. Would you call it a clash of opinions?
"He's wrong" is an opinion.I don't think there are any opinions here. He's wrong.
Its his personal belief. He doesnt have to prove anything to you or anyone else to hold it, and to espouse it.If you could provide some sort of logical reasoning that suggests he is correct,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?