Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

Old 03-13-07, 02:48 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,460
Originally Posted by dick_grayson
Gen Pace is likely gay himself.


Naw, but he's quite fetching in full pirate drag!
adamblast is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 02:56 PM
  #27  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/13/gay...ary/index.html
Top general: Remarks on gays were 'personal moral views'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, said Tuesday he should have focused more on military policy and less on his own opinion when he told a newspaper homosexual acts are immoral.

His remarks drew opposition from some lawmakers and an advocacy group.

Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Chicago Tribune on Monday that he supports the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct," Pace said in a statement. "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."

Earlier Tuesday, senior staff members for Pace said the general had no plans to apologize for his comments, which included comparisons between homosexuality and adultery -- behavior that he said is prosecuted in the military.

"My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral," Pace told the Tribune. "I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct."

Pace also told the paper, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.


"So the 'don't ask, don't tell' [policy] allows an individual to serve the country ... if we know about immoral acts, regardless of committed by who, then we have a responsibility.

"I do not believe that the armed forces are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way, not just with regards to homosexual acts," the Joint Chiefs chairman said.

"So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity," he added....
He will be brought before several congressional committees for castigation by the usual "shocked & outraged" media-whoring microphone addicts.

Their mission will be to: (a) smear the military, by offering Gen. Pace up as a homophobic "bigot".
(b) by association, the entire Bush administration &
(c) the GOP.

The general should not apologize for stating his personal opinion.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 03:03 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by bhk
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/13/gay...ary/index.html


He will be brought before several congressional committees for castigation by the usual "shocked & outraged" media-whoring microphone addicts.

Their mission will be to: (a) smear the military, by offering Gen. Pace up as a homophobic "bigot".
(b) by association, the entire Bush administration &
(c) the GOP.

The general should not apologize for stating his personal opinion.
Eh, I could give a shit if he apologizes. However, giving his personal opinion on a professional military matter showed extremely poor judgement and he should be reprimanded.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 03:55 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Who reprimands the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 03:56 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by classicman2
Who reprimands the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
Congress, the President, Martha Stewart.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 04:09 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,393
So,
homosexuality = immoral
adultery = immoral
killing people = a proud, honorable tradition
TheMadMonk is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 04:14 PM
  #32  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,945
Originally Posted by TheMadMonk
killing people = a proud, honorable tradition
Maybe not, but defending your country in a time of war certainly has a proud, honorable tradition.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 04:18 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Maybe not, but defending your country in a time of war certainly has a proud, honorable tradition.
As long as it's not illegal.
Nazgul is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 05:39 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,062
Originally Posted by dick_grayson
Gen Pace is likely gay himself.
It's only a matter of time until the gay escort shows up.
Jason is online now  
Old 03-13-07, 05:51 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by dick_grayson
Gen Pace is likely gay himself.
Doesn't seem like a cheerful, happy guy to me.
nodeerforamonth is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 06:19 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Shackled
Posts: 35,372
Originally Posted by classicman2
I do have a problem with his 'immoral' comment. I don't believe that comment was necessary. I do believe he should tell the congress how his views on the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy of the military.
Cogent and direct and I agree completely.
Bushdog is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 09:02 PM
  #37  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Originally Posted by Ranger
Wonder if he'd favor kicking out all the adulterers in the military?
Isn't adultery against the UCMJ?
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 09:19 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Shackled
Posts: 35,372
Originally Posted by Venusian
Isn't adultery against the UCMJ?
I believe so. I also believe that doesn't answer the question that was raised.
Bushdog is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 09:29 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Where the sky is always Carolina Blue! (Currently VA - again...)
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Venusian
Isn't adultery against the UCMJ?
It certainly is. People get courtmartialed for it all the time. Last year they drummed a 3-star out for it too.
Tuan Jim is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 09:47 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Originally Posted by Bushdog
I believe so. I also believe that doesn't answer the question that was raised.
i can't answer the question since i dont know what he thinks but if he is enforcing existing policy, it sounds like he'd be for kicking people out
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-13-07, 10:52 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
Originally Posted by classicman2
I do have a problem with his 'immoral' comment. I don't believe that comment was necessary. I do believe he should tell the congress how his views on the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy of the military.
Well, this is the kind of political/moral bonding we've seen over the last 6 years (and at other times but more pronounced recently). You have individuals who really have no place to give input on their morality and use it as a standard for Americans, but do anyway because they have a religious fanatic President who will back them up. In addition, when there is a lack of any logical argument or they cannot come up with one, they use morality in the hopes they will gain the religious empathy and therefore skew public opinion.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-14-07, 02:38 PM
  #42  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Well, this is the kind of political/moral bonding we've seen over the last 6 years (and at other times but more pronounced recently). You have individuals who really have no place to give input on their morality and use it as a standard for Americans, but do anyway because they have a religious fanatic President who will back them up. In addition, when there is a lack of any logical argument or they cannot come up with one, they use morality in the hopes they will gain the religious empathy and therefore skew public opinion.


Pace is indicating support for the policy implemented by the horndog-in-chief.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-14-07, 04:47 PM
  #43  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,460
Remember this guy? Senator Alan Simpson (R, Wyoming, 79-97)



He's written an op-ed in today's Washington Post critical of Pace's comments, and in support of gays in the military... Here's a sample paragraph:

My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under "don't ask, don't tell," including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation's "foreign language deficit" and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a "straight" way to translate Arabic? Is there a "gay" Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.
Full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07.html?sub=AR
_______________

Edit: And while I'm compiling, here's yesterday's fine Slate editorial about the "increasing incoherence" of the military's defense of DADT.

Don't miss Undersecretary of Defense David Chu's new claim that even *discussing* gays in the military will give comfort to our enemies.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161764

It does a great job (on page 2) of discussing how DADT has actually been *used* over the past decade.

Last edited by adamblast; 03-14-07 at 05:35 PM.
adamblast is offline  
Old 03-14-07, 06:18 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by adamblast
Edit: And while I'm compiling, here's yesterday's fine Slate editorial about the "increasing incoherence" of the military's defense of DADT.

Don't miss Undersecretary of Defense David Chu's new claim that even *discussing* gays in the military will give comfort to our enemies.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161764

It does a great job (on page 2) of discussing how DADT has actually been *used* over the past decade.
The Palm study should be required reading for Pace, so he can explain why gay counterintelligence officers are too immoral to serve in the military, while it made sense to admit Pvt. Steven Green, a high school dropout with three criminal convictions and a history of substance abuse who is charged with the rape and killing of an Iraqi family in Mahmudiya, Iraq. Green was enlisted through a moral waiver.
Nice. Are the people in charge fucking insane?
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 03-14-07, 06:51 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,460
It would sure seem so. They're so desperate for bodies that they 1) won't let people quit when their enlistments are up 2) keep pushing injured soldiers back into duty and 3) have sped-up "moral waiver" programs to enlist felons.

I'm firmly convinced that the only reason *today* for the gay exclusion policy is political & religious. The rank and file are ready. The American public is ready. Yet top brass are, on the whole, religious conservatives who are personally in tune with those trying to slow down the normalization of homosexuality.

Last edited by adamblast; 03-14-07 at 07:12 PM.
adamblast is offline  
Old 03-14-07, 07:17 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Oh, by the way Adam- you expressed a desire for a certain ex-member's email address. I was going to email it to you, but you have that feature turned off. If you want it, email me through my profile.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 03-14-07, 07:40 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,062
Originally Posted by adamblast
Don't miss Undersecretary of Defense David Chu's new claim that even *discussing* gays in the military will give comfort to our enemies.
If we're truly fighting "islamofacism", wouldn't having gays in the military give us a psychological advantage, as they would be terrified of having their life taken by a homosexual?
Jason is online now  
Old 03-15-07, 12:24 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by marty888
But then, logic doesn't seem to be his strong point. C'mon - he's saying that homosexuality (an orientation) is equivilant to adultery (an activity).
He specified "acts", not feelings or orientation. It's an important distinction. It's my understanding that the military does in fact discipline those who commit adultery as well.
Artman is offline  
Old 03-15-07, 12:43 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,460
Originally Posted by Artman
He specified "acts", not feelings or orientation. It's an important distinction. It's my understanding that the military does in fact discipline those who commit adultery as well.
Yes, but one of the great misconceptions about DADT is that one must have committed gay "acts", like having been caught in an affair, or announcing one's orientation to one's superiors. No.

To quote from the Slate article linked above (my italics):
While the military insists its policy is based on gay behavior and not innate status, the law defines homosexual conduct to include a statement of status, even if made by a third party. When the Pentagon learns of "credible evidence" that a service member is gay, whether or not he has ever had sex with anyone, an investigation is mandated. This means if a service member is outed by his chaplain, his doctor, or his mother (all of which have happened) and is investigated, the service member can be fired if investigators learn that, 10 years earlier, he uttered the words, "my boyfriend walked his dog." The courts regard such a statement to be homosexual conduct. Most Americans, however, probably do not consider it sexual conduct of any kind.
This is exactly the manner in which most gays have been thrown out of the military in the past decade--because someone else ratted them out, and often unrelated to any sexual activity whatsoever.
adamblast is offline  
Old 03-15-07, 12:57 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by adamblast
Yes, but one of the great misconceptions about DADT is that one must have committed gay "acts", like having been caught in an affair, or announcing one's orientation to one's superiors.
Yeah, I think that's pretty stupid. In any case, I was not so much referring to the policy but the opinion of the General's quote, which was mistated.
Artman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.