Not surprisingly, the regulars are confused about the difference between moral and legal. Slavery was legal at one time, but as society has matured, it has been realized that slavery was never moral. Same thing with gays. It may be illegal in the military to act gay in any manner, but that is not the same as saying that gay activity is immoral. This is the difference that matters. The general has a right to speak to the legality, but not the morality of military codes of conduct...as morality is not a constant, but law can be. Law is objective, morality is subjective, and his subjective opinion in the military of all places means squat... That's the whole point that the right wingers make constantly, that the military is about following orders and rules, not deciding if the rules or moral or not.... So it appears as if the klans want it both ways...that you have to follow the rules, and not question the morality of them...but if somone agrees with your sense of what is moral, then they can speak about immoral behavior all they want.... Classic.
Nothing but doubletalk. You asked about morality, and how it works in the military, and since when do they control it? Several people responded with correct answer. One who quoted the military law to you. The regulars are not confused, you are. You are obviously wrong, so just let it go. Wrong, that is, in accordance, with military laws, not to mention a few others.
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.
So you believe those "confessions"? Anyone will admit to doing anything after enough torture Full report: --------------------------------------------------- Confessions of a Torturer: The story of U.S. Army interrogator Tony Lagouranis By John Conroy 03/13/07 "Chicago Reader" -- 03/02/07 -- TONY LAGOURANIS DOESNâT fit the profile of a person likely to go wrong by following orders. Heâs lived a footloose life unconstrained by a desire for professional advancement, for the approval of superiors, even for a comfortable home. A freethinker, he read the great works of Western civilization in college and mastered classical languages. It was his desire to learn Arabic as well that took him to Iraq. And there, as an army interrogator, he tortured detainees for information he admits they rarely had. Since leaving Iraq heâs taken this story public, doing battle on national television against the warâs architects for giving him the orders he regrets he obeyed. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17297.htm
Gay joke: Why did the gays come out of the closet? So they could spread AIDS to women also. Not funny huh?..
If the general had said he supports the military's policy on affirmative action because that was the way he was raised and he feels it is a moral issue, would that also be an unacceptable injection of his personal views into military policy? One suspects not. The left has a huge list of issues that they don't want to debate on the merits. Things like the gay agenda, open immigration, race quotas, etc. So instead of debating them, they declare them off limits to discussion on the grounds that anyone opposing them is a hate-filled, homophobic, racist Nazi.
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.
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.