The general's comments on gays

It was a stupid thing for him to say if his goal is to keep gays out of the Military. His comments can be used as evidence in cases of discrimination against the military. It is usually argued on the grounds of "combat readiness" not morality.

I didn't go into the military so I have no basis to comment on it ....

ZZZZZZ, singles out "white klansman" .......... what a f'ing joke. Blacks are waaaaaaaaaay more anti-homosexual, ... how about your arab buddies, do they welcome queers with open arms? What about Asians.....

I've said it before, I don't give a shit who takes it up the ass from who, but it is the height of arrogance for gays to assume that they have the right to redefine a tradition dating back to the dawn of man. "IT'S PROGESSIVE!" I despise them for that.

Although, give me a decade or two to change my mind... by then I probably won't give a shit.
 
I have not said there is no such thing as right and wrong, please work on the reading comprehension.

I said there is no agreed upon moral absolute by all of mankind, and the closest we can come is to live by the golden rule.

Moralist style preaching is not necessary in the military. What is necessary is following orders and the chain of command, right?

Again, yall klans get in a snit when an officer refuses to follow orders because he thinks the War in Iraq is "Immoral."

He has a right to do that, and a right to suffer the consequences that will come with that. However his punishment is going to come not on the basis of morality, but legality of his refusal to follow orders.

The general has the right to act like an ass, and then also the right to suffer the consequences...

The army simply does not run on moral codes, they run on military codes.

Military codes, as shown previously, are not synonymous with moral codes.

We kill them, moral?

They kill us, immoral?

We think killing them is legal.

They think killing us is legal.

We say they are immoral and illegal.

They say we are immoral and illegal.

Don't you get it?

Are you essentially saying whoever wins is the moral one?

If a superior power were to defeat the USA, that would be moral, and we would be immoral because we were beaten?

Think man, think...

Amazing to me that you are a lawyer and don't understand the difference between what is legal, how things are made legal, and what is moral, and what determines morality...

Quote from jem:

zzz - First I find it strange you feel comfortable judging others morals when you have stated that morals are determined by culture. According to you there is no right and wrong. So the army is a culture set up to do certain things...


if you were to take the moral- ism or moral component out of the army the army would be in disarray like our public schools.

The army runs on moral codes. Whether right or wrong the military has to believe it is fighting a just cause a just war, that there is a moral right and wrong.

When moral relativists like you start telling the military that we have no right to judge others behaviors no matter how heinous because morals are cultural how the hell are you going to get that man to sacrifice his life for you.

The bottom line we cant have gay guys sleeping butts to nuts with straight guys. Consequently, gay sex is immoral for the military.

When you find a bunch of Navy seals who have no problem with hugging gay guys in an igloo to keep warm on a training mission then you can tell me the general has no right to say gay sex is morally wrong.
More...
 
I'm not into judging peoples sexual peculiarities on "moral" grounds. I've got my own hangups. However just as I believe one has a right to suck dick, I also believe individuals and organizations have an equal right to shun homos. Isn't freedom a two way street?

Homosexual men are as sexually aggressive as hetero guys. That's to say, homos are on the make. A gay friend once explained to me the phenomena of male homosexual promiscuity. He said "if women were as horny as guys you too would get laid everytime you went out. With gays it's a relationship of two people who want to sleep with everything that moves."

Statistics bare this out. Dr. Paul Cameron conducted an extensive study in the 80's showing that about 30% of molestation cases involved M/m. Given that the percentage of homosexuals in society is indeterminate, we can't accurately state at what greater multiple homos molest vs. hetero's. We know empirically though that homo's are far less than 30% of the population. Thus homo's are more likely to molest than straights.

A straight guy has as much a right to prefer segregation from gays in sleeping/bathing situations as do women who prefer to not be ogled by guy's in the same scenarios.

Homo's can clammer for marriage and equal rights (i.e. non exclusion) as much as they like but the bottom line is: homosexual behavior is the definition of abnormal. How so? If the world suddenly became homo, we'd be in our last generation of humanity.

If one's entire identity is based on who they sleep with (or their skin color or their religion) they are incomplete. When I hear of the "gay lobby" rather than cringe I just crack up.
 
"If the world suddenly became homo, we'd be in our last generation of humanity."

Apparently you are not very up to date on science, are you....

Or have you never heard of a gay woman going to a sperm bank, get a withdrawal, have it shoved up her hoo hoo, and she and her girlfriend live happily every after with a new baby...all without the need of the standard human procreation...

Not to mention what will eventually happen cloning...


Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

I'm not into judging peoples sexual peculiarities on "moral" grounds. I've got my own hangups. However just as I believe one has a right to suck dick, I also believe individuals and organizations have an equal right to shun homos. Isn't freedom a two way street?

Homosexual men are as sexually aggressive as hetero guys. That's to say, homos are on the make. A gay friend once explained to me the phenomena of male homosexual promiscuity. He said "if women were as horny as guys you too would get laid everytime you went out. With gays it's a relationship of two people who want to sleep with everything that moves."

Statistics bare this out. Dr. Paul Cameron conducted an extensive study in the 80's showing that about 30% of molestation cases involved M/m. Given that the percentage of homosexuals in society is indeterminate, we can't accurately state at what greater multiple homos molest vs. hetero's. We know empirically though that homo's are far less than 30% of the population. Thus homo's are more likely to molest than straights.

A straight guy has as much a right to prefer segregation from gays in sleeping/bathing situations as do women who prefer to not be ogled by guy's in the same scenarios.

Homo's can clammer for marriage and equal rights (i.e. non exclusion) as much as they like but the bottom line is: homosexual behavior is the definition of abnormal. How so? If the world suddenly became homo, we'd be in our last generation of humanity.

If one's entire identity is based on who they sleep with (or their skin color or their religion) they are incomplete. When I hear of the "gay lobby" rather than cringe I just crack up.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I have not said there is no such thing as right and wrong, please work on the reading comprehension.

I said there is no agreed upon moral absolute by all of mankind, and the closest we can come is to live by the golden rule.

Moralist style preaching is not necessary in the military. What is necessary is following orders and the chain of command, right?

Again, yall klans get in a snit when an officer refuses to follow orders because he thinks the War in Iraq is "Immoral."

He has a right to do that, and a right to suffer the consequences that will come with that. However his punishment is going to come not on the basis of morality, but legality of his refusal to follow orders.

The general has the right to act like an ass, and then also the right to suffer the consequences...

The army simply does not run on moral codes, they run on military codes.

Military codes, as shown previously, are not synonymous with moral codes.

We kill them, moral?

They kill us, immoral?

We think killing them is legal.

They think killing us is legal.

We say they are immoral and illegal.

They say we are immoral and illegal.

Don't you get it?

Are you essentially saying whoever wins is the moral one?

If a superior power were to defeat the USA, that would be moral, and we would be immoral because we were beaten?

Think man, think...

Amazing to me that you are a lawyer and don't understand the difference between what is legal, how things are made legal, and what is moral, and what determines morality...
More...

zzz I do not know where you studied jurisprudence but you got it all wrong.

The law is based on moral codes whether you like it or not.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Hey Pam, or is it Joey....or dittohead?

If you don't understand the difference between law and morality, I can't help you at all. Nor do I think anyone else can...

The military codes are laws of the military, and they are not necessarily moral, for despite what the klans think, there is no moral absolute foundation to mankind that is an absolute constant. The golden rule is as close as it gets to an absolute morality, and there are always exceptions to the rule according to the needs of the situation...but the act itself of killing is exactly the same. The morality is not determined at all by the act, but the intention of the act of killing, or the belief that God was on the side of the killing, so that is exactly what the moralists use to rationalize actions that they would turn around and condem in others.

Military morality is a joke term anyway...as we see military all over the world from other countries act in a manner we see as immoral, but to them it is perfectly legal and perhaps perfectly moral according to their military codes...we kill them, we say it is legal and moral, but when they kill us we also say it is illegal and immoral...

This is precisely why the klans are afraid of internatinal law, as they don't want to be bound by a basic agreement among all humanity for what is right and wrong...they believe the end justifies the means, that might makes right, that their God is right and someone else's God is wrong...so heaven forbid if they have to listen to anyone else and their concept of law and morality.
More...

I understand the difference between law & morality. But as I and others said, in earlier posts, thats not the way the military works.

You ask, "SINCE WHEN"? , and we told you. Someone even quoted military law. The military operates for the good of the whole unit. It does dictate law & morality, and nearly anything else. This is done, because it takes some degree of discipline, to control a military organization.

As far as calling me a "dittohead" LOL, im not bothered. People like you often resort to name calling, when they are wrong, as you are in this case, according to military law.

The question was answered correctly, by several people on here, you just didnt like the answer. Dont ask the question, if you dont want the answer. You asked the question, thinking you were right. Its not a big deal, you just didnt know.

I served 6 years in the army, and I have personally witnessed the army dictate laws and morality on numerous occassions.

They will probably continue to dictate laws & morality. I dont see it changing anytime soon.

I guess that you have not served in the military, or otherwise, you would have known about military policy
 
zzz I just re-read your silly argument above about killing.

You cant be serious.

You need to study up on homicide and the military code of justice.

I am not sure if you remember a guy named Kerry but I think he made a big deal about justified killings during a time of war? If fact I think there may have been two senators named kerry whose careers were made and lost based on justified killing during a time of war.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



Or have you never heard of a gay woman going to a sperm bank, get a withdrawal, have it shoved up her hoo hoo, and she and her girlfriend live happily every after with a new baby...all without the need of the standard human procreation...

Not to mention what will eventually happen cloning...
More...

Geez, the way you can explain homo"ness" in one of your earlier
posts makes it sound like you might be gay and proud of it...:p

My wife's mother's 6th husband's (who died 2 weeks ago) grandaughter
was one of those "lets go to the sperm bank and get us some sperm"
so she and her lesbian girlfriend could have a baby. I saw the baby
at the memorial service for my wife's mother's 6th husband. The
baby looked normal but the mom looked like your average dike.

Imagine if the guy who contributed that sperm knew it was going
to be used to create a child that would have no dad. Only two
mommy's. I bet he would of never done it. Unless he was gay himself
in the first place.

So, I guess you are right. The homo's can take over the world and
make babies without normal people. Gay guys contribute the sperm
and the dikes have the babies.

The world gets worse as time goes on. That's all I can say.

(BTW, ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, you would make a good gay book writer...LOL...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Straw man argument.

Affirmative action is about the idea of reverse discrimination and providing opportunity for those who would not otherwise get the opportunity unless and until the chain of command is forced to provide those opportunities.

Homophobic morality judgments are about discriminating against a person on the basis of their sexual preference, with condemnation being a major aspect of the moralist slant.

Moral-ism is preaching and we don't need preachy public servants passing judgment on others on the basis of their own personal belief, grounded in their own religion.

The General has a right to discuss the military law, why he thinks it is a good law on a practical and pragmatic basis and make an argument from that perspective, but his own personal moral-ism is irrelevant to the law and the rules, and he should not be used to buttress the argument for the law, and also is not his duty to publicly speak as a representative of the military on.

Essentially, he is overstepping the bounds of his acting duties to preach moral-ism. That is not what generals are for. The Chaplain perhaps could have that position of speaking to his congregation of like minded followers of some particular religion, but not a military commander.

Who knows? They general may be another Mark Foley or Ted Haggard. And that were the case, that would be on his conscience.

Really when you think about it, this all has to do with the fear of homosexuality. Fear that in close quarters, a man who is gay would possibly approach another man and convert him, or molest him, or use his superior command to abuse him.

Or her as the case might be.

We see the same type of thing in major league sports. We know statistically, that the odds are great that there is some superstar out there who is probably gay, but the "code" of the locker room is to stay in the closet.

What is it about white male republiklans that they live in fear thinking any homo wants to suck their cock, or do them in the ass? Are they afraid they might like it? Afraid of some STD? Sort of egotistical actually. Why do you homophobes think gay men want to get their jizz on with a straight homophobic guy? Do yall klans live in fear of gay rape?

It is a lot like some chick who thinks she is so hot that every dude wants her...or that every man is going to rape her.

It really is simple. If you are ever approached by a gay man, and he offers sex, just say no thanks.

Oh, but he may look at you longingly with those hungry gay eyes, just thinking of nothing but going back door on you...

Is that your fantasy, your nightmare scenario?

Really, I just don't get it.

Statistically, what are the odds outside of prison to be raped by a guy?

Yall klans are so macho anyway, I am sure you could handle any girlyman.
More...

So I was right. It's ok with liberals for generals to attach moral significance to some policies but not others, based on whether or not liberals agree with them.

This appears to be an application of the standard liberal interpretation of the First Amendment: "Everyone who disagrees with me shut the f*ck up."
 
The Constitution and Bill of Rights of The USA is not a moral code, it is a document that grants freedoms, moral codes do not grant freedoms...neither are the laws that come out of congress moral codes, the senate, presidential orders, city council decisions, local referendums, state legislators, etc...



Quote from jem:

zzz I do not know where you studied jurisprudence but you got it all wrong.

The law is based on moral codes whether you like it or not.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top