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...
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...
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.
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.
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... 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...
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...