I didn't put my hands over my ears and say: "La la la la, I can't hear you..." I don't think that his comments about his sense of what is moral serves any utility. Is he entitled to his personal opinion? Sure, but when he was speaking, was he speaking as a private citizen, or a representative of the taxpayers? It doesn't matter if it is PC, or Un-PC, he is not employed to give opinions on morality, he is employed to make recommendations as they apply to military advice, national defense, national security, etc.....not moral judgments which are nothing but divisive. Shit, it is not as if his job is to replace Billy Graham... http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C5.txt
Also Doc, not to sound paranoid but I am an early spotter of trends. What if homosexuality were condoned and like the priesthood, the military soon becomes a bona fide bastion of homosexuality. A sanctuary. A place that gays yearn to serve. I'm not saying they'd be ill-prepared soldiers. Even for me that would be a presumptuous thought from one who hasn't served. I'm just saying it's probably best to not have a "gay mafia" running things. Dirty little secret. The Republican Party is filled with homo's in key leadership spots. We've seen the effect. Neo-con should be called no-cunt. Fucked up little bitches. The Dem's have been gay for years. The media is VERY unobtrusive in spreading rumored innuendo about pols. Athletes too. Believe me, any beat writer covering a pro team quickly hears which guys get high, or cheat or overspend ect. It rarely hits the papers. Neither does the average fan hear about the tremendous amount of Jesus stuff athletes are into. Popular institutions had might as well be the scull and cross bones.
When I was in there were not many openly homosexual gays stateside that I encountered. However, once we got underway and on a WESTPAC Float things seemed to change a lots. I would was see officers and NCO's and non-rates one and all flaming it up in clubs in Korea or Japan or Oki and the PI and Australia. Though it never really bothered me that much. Many other Marines were generally on the warpath after seeing two Sailors getting down on the dance floor. ME...I was just looking for the pussy and I wasn't real concerned what the other puffters were doing. Remember this was the early to mid-80's. I was lucky enough to be a Reagan Marine. This was still the Old school Marine Corp. This was way before Clinton and "don't ask don't tell." And it was way way before mixed gender training and boot platoon. Which were and are a complete PC joke. All in all by my observations I have no problem with gays guys in the military. Yet if the other question is do I condone women in the field with Marines and in a combat arms MOS. The answer is no I do not. This biggest joke of all is that some officer would try to lay claim to what kind of behaviour was moral or immoral in his Marine Corp. After what this same officer staff have asked young marines under their command to do in pursuit of their stated mission in Iraq and Ghanny. If the whole thing weren't so comical....I'd cry everynight.
You;ll be looking and waiting a long time before you see the likes of any sort Gay Mafia firmly entrenched in any Americans fighting force. Though you always hope Pabst.
So you are against women being in a foxhole with you and you are for gayboys being in the foxhole with you. Sounds sexist to me. And definitely Pro-gay. I'd rather have a woman looking at me in a foxhole instead of some gay dude. Obviously you would rather have the fairyboy...:eek: You know what they say in my neck of the woods: Pro-gay is just another gay who hasn't come out of the closet yet.
Has anyone really looked at Osama Obama? He looks like a closet-homo if I have ever seen one. A girly man...
save the paranioa for the author of "The Death of the West" http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19833 Gen. Pace vs. Parson Warner by Patrick J. Buchanan (More by this author) Posted: 03/15/2007 "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you," said Leon Trotsky. And that is surely true of the culture war. Before an editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, not only endorsed presidential policy by which active homosexuals are discharged from the service, he declared that policy to be right morally. "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immorality. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." Equating homosexual sex with adultery, Pace added, "(I)f we find out so-and-so is sleeping with somebody else's wife," we do not tolerate it. As Pace was supporting policy, why did he find himself in a Beltway firefight? The responses to Pace's moral assertions are indicative of the state of play, the correlation of forces, in America's culture war. Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to duck the big question. "We need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population. We don't need a moral judgment from the chairman of Joint Chiefs." But Pace never suggested gays were not patriotic. He said homosexual activity is outlawed in the service -- and is immoral. The Washington Post allowed as how Pace "is entitled to his opinions, of course," but should have considered the "impact of his public expression of intolerance on the men and women he commands." But if declaring homosexual acts immoral is an "expression of intolerance," the Post is charging the Catholic Church and traditional Christians with 2,000 years of intolerance, as well as all U.S. Armed Forces prior to 1993, when homosexuals were routinely severed. What do the moralists at the Post say of Pace's "intolerance" of adultery? Should the general have first considered the "impact of his public expression of intolerance" on the adulterers in the barracks or officers' club? "Homosexuals serve admirably and openly -- without fear of prosecution or sneering judgment -- in 24 countries, including Israel," retorts the Post. Why Israel was brought in was not stated. And, yes, adulterers, too, have served honorably and heroically. But should, then, the ban on soldiers sleeping with other soldiers' wives also be lifted? The questions raised by the Post are several: What is immoral? Whose moral code do we consult? What is not only immoral but ought to be grounds for dismissal? For not everything that is immoral should be illegal and not everything that is illegal is immoral, as Catholics demonstrated during Prohibition. Two Republican heavies have now weighed in. Ex-Sen. Alan Simpson, in a Post column, "Bigotry That Hurts Our Military," says he has grown since voting for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and now calls it "prejudice" to sever active homosexuals from the service. He relates the story of professor Alan Turing, a British homosexual who helped crack the Nazi code. "Would Pace call Turing immoral?" asks Simpson, who went from the GOP caucus to Harvard and now as faithfully parrots the latter's values as once he did the former's. Good question. From what Simpson relates, Turing was a hero. But if Turing spent his nights cruising SoHo, he may not have led a moral life and ought not to be bunking in the barracks of Fighter Command. One may be patriotic in public service and immoral in private life. Lots of folks have been -- even a few presidents. It is John Warner, however, ex-chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who hit the issue squarely. Of the moral beliefs of his fellow Marine, Parson Warner declared, "I ... strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral." This brings us to the heart of the matter. Is homosexuality -- not the orientation, but the activity -- inherently immoral? On Pace's side, that homosexuality is immoral, we have the Bible and Koran, 2,000 years of Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and natural law, the moral beliefs of virtually every society to the present, and the laws of every state before the 1960s. Up to 1973, psychiatrists treated it as a disorder. Nations where homosexuality is rampant have been regarded as "decadent." Who, Sen. Warner, are the moral authorities for your assertion that homosexual conduct is moral -- other than the Bishop Robinson wing of the Episcopal Church? What this uproar tells us is that America is no longer a moral community. On the most fundamental issues -- abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, euthanasia, sterilization, cloning, and the creation of, and buying and selling of, fetuses for research -- we are at war. What part of the nation sees as progress, the other sees as depravity. And where there is no moral community, there will not long be one country. For in a religious or culture war, there is no peaceful coexistence. One side wins, the other side loses. As President Bush said, he who is not with us is against us.
I have doscovered the joys of the ignore feature and it's blessed relief. This nitwit was at the top of the list, but I saw his post quoted. It's funny, v77... you make an awful lot of references to homosexuality. I remember in your other juvenille anti-this or anti-that threads, if anyone questioned your ill-conceived views, you would immediately post and call them 'gay'. Why this obsession with homosexuality? You know what they say in my neck of the woods? Not that people who are pro-gay are gay themselves. It is the men who are most rabidly anti-gay that are in fact scared of what they might really feel... Don't waste your time responding. I won't see it and no one is going to quote it.