Right. Because homos in the military naturally suggests immoral behavior in the same way that there are absolutely no half-Vietnamese, half-foreign babies born during the Vietnam conflict.

I would agree with Bruce's assesment about the necessity of morality within the military but I disagree with Gen. Pace's definition of the morality of homosexuality.

And I definately disagree with Speaker Pelosi. But that's just because I think she's an idiot.

pace is tripping all over himself trying to apologize! sounding like a real moron. what an idiot!

There's a difference between the capacity for basic human morality and "moral judgment" -- and the appropriateness of judging of gays in the military, in this example.

Pelosi did not say there wasn't a place for morality - she said there was no place for moral judgment. Having each individual solider, for example, judging and deciding whether to support their homosexual comrades is not appropriate.

Or is the "morality" Kessler so desperately wants reserved just for the generals? Kessler suggests that it's universal, but apparently fails to see the problems that would present.

General Pace didn't make the important distinction between the estimated 65,000 military members who are merely homosexual as a person, and the illegal sexual activity prohibited by military law. But with troop levels now so strained for manpower, why General Pace chose to bring this up right now is a good question of judgement. Petty criminals, minor drug users and those with lower test scores are now being allowed in by military recruiters because of the shortage of military manpower for example.

"why General Pace chose to bring this up right now is a good question of judgement."

It would appear from his comment that General Pace may be more interested in defeating his fellow countrymen (Democrats and liberals) than he is in engaging the enemy. I can't imagine a single reason to not have homosexuals in the military -- what IS wrong with this guy?

It would appear from his comment that General Pace may be more interested in defeating his fellow countrymen (Democrats and liberals) than he is in engaging the enemy.

Well, he did take an oath to protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He must be getting around to the domestic ones.

I do think that homosexuality is a deviant act and thus immoral. I know, now call me homophobic, and bigot, yada, yada. It is what I believe. Notice I did not say I want them bashed or killed. I would prefer they are prayed for.

As far as the army "lowering" their standards, you have to know that there is a big need in the military for support service personnel. Kitchen duty, warehouse, and such. ww

Is that based on your vast military experience, Lee?

Notice I did not say I want them bashed or killed. I would prefer they are prayed for.

Wow - so we should commend you for that, right? Self-righteous f&@%. Radical islamists believe we infidels do not deserve to live. But not ALL of them want to kill us. Is that belief okay then?

It's people like you -- ignorant, proud assholes who use religion to justify their prejudices and fears -- that really don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us (but will receive them and should, deservedly so, in a democracy).

You're probably sitting there, thinking I'm some sort of dick for questioning your stance, maybe feeling the need to pray for me too. What you don't realize is your own beliefs are what will send you to hell. Scumbag.

And for the record - I'm not gay, but I am much more of a true American than you will ever be.

...and, by turn, much better a Christian than you can possibly be.

hansel2,

I seem to recall something about a plank and a speck.

You may want to go re-read that part of Christianity, and then take another look at your comment and see how it fits.

Pace was intemperate in his remarks while Pelosi was her normal inane self. She doesn't even realize how stupid she sounds when she makes this overtly judgmental (and ironically oxymoronic) statement:

We don't need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs

Word's like "we don't need" are morally judgmental on their face, are they not? How about if she had just said, "I know this is a judgmental statement, loaded with condescending, morally freighted-language, but I'll say it anyway because the people who support me won't notice how imbecilic I sound when I say: we don't need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs."

What a bonehead.

So what you're suggesting, Sheik, is there are things in my life that prevent me from judging others. Well, while I may be angry at Willie's post, he also has proudly declared his intolerance for fellow human beings who don't fit what he defines as "moral."

Quite different. My anger is at his intolerance. And that's something that deserves judgment. Would you say the same thing if I yelled at someone for declaring themselves a proud pedophile? A racist? Someone who hides behind the bible to say they think homosexuality is immoral or a sickness is worthy of ridicule. It's ignorant - and it's just plain ugly.

Why does Gen. Pace hate the troops?

What if you are heterosexual, and you like to take an occasional trip down the hersey highway?

Is it OK if it is between a man and a women, but not OK if it is between two men?

...and, by turn, much better a Christian than you can possibly be.
Posted by: hansel2

Skating on some pretty thin theological ice there, sister. I am reasonably confident there are many better Christians out there than I. The converse is not true.

Having each individual solider, for example, judging and deciding whether to support their homosexual comrades is not appropriate.

To answer Lee, this is precisely the reason for Don't ask, Don't tell. Mincing, prancing, openly- gay-and-aggressively-so homosexuals put their fellow troops in exactly that position.

"I do think that homosexuality is a deviant act and thus immoral"

I can't stand this view. I am a heterosexual male, christian, republican, and I find this fucking ridiculous. So, please explain why straying from the norm makes you all of a sudden immoral?

Barney:
"Why does Gen. Pace hate the troops?"

He doesn't Barney, he hates you.

"What if you are heterosexual, and you like to take an occasional trip down the hersey highway? Is it OK if it is between a man and a women, but not OK if it is between two men?"

Its ok barney, while we really couldn't think much less of you as it is, I don't mind that you like it in the arse.

Do you think Pelosi would stand in front of someone like Lt Watanada, who refused muster to Iraq, and tell him "we don't need to steekin' morality in the military"?

Look, with DHIMMIcRATs, when morality rears its ugly head is entirely when it's convenient for Liberals... i.e. when they say so.

Memo to the gays and their supporters: sorry, but there's not going to be any butt-boinking on the front lines, no matter how much you want it.

Just one question to all you bleedingheart morons--who would you want in a foxhole besides you--a frigging queer or a straight man or women? And no I don't give a damn what you think of me. I got my opinion and you got yours.

"pucker puss" (lee lee) (RTP) (RM)--the Alan Combs of WizBang.

"I do think that homosexuality is a deviant act and thus immoral"

"I can't stand this view. I am a heterosexual male, christian, republican, and I find this fucking ridiculous. So, please explain why straying from the norm makes you all of a sudden immoral?"

I always find it interesting when somebody claims to be a Christian (it's with a capital 'C', but then again since you obviously aren't a follower of Christ, the small 'c' may apply to you), yet is ignorant of God's view of homosexuality. Try reading Romans 1. It isn't that God hates the homosexual, it is the act (sin) that God hates. Just like the sin of fornication between unmarried people. It is just that we want to do what we want and then justify by trying to change God.

And by your own admission, if I 'stray from the norm' into pedophilia, then that's okay.

Of course, we are just so much more enlightened today and know so much more than any mere god.

Was moral judgement made about the American soldiers having sex in front of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib?

D-Hoggs:

I can't stand this view. I am a heterosexual male, christian, republican, and I find this fucking ridiculous. So, please explain why straying from the norm makes you all of a sudden immoral?

I assume this is meant in sarcasm but just in case, there is an answer. Latter question first:

1. "Normal" and "immoral" are not coterminous. Straying from "normal" neither makes you nor does not make you "immoral" since the two terms have no relation to each other. You can live in Lebanon and take routine trips across the southern border to kill Jews and this would, in Hamas circles, be considered "normal".

2. "...all of a sudden immoral?" is somewhat of a non-sequitor. Why does getting in a car and pulling from the curb "all the sudden" make you a driver? Because maybe you are driving?

One moment you are not doing immoral behavior and the next you are, is very much like "all of the sudden". But the issue is not the speed at which you are becoming immoral but rather, is the morality of the activity itself. As a Christian you have to believe the activity is immoral (along with many other ones that shouldn't be tolerated). Which brings me to:

3. Christian doctrine is well-established on what constitutes immorality. Christ and His apostles reminded us of this. Setting aside for a moment, the Old Testament to avoid a discussion of Mosaic law, we only need to visit a few passages to find that Jesus condemned adultery and fornication (one or both of which can be engaged in by either hetro or homosexuals - does this make Jesus "ignorant and ugly"?), and Paul has a nice little list in Romans 1 as well:

Pride
Idolatry
Lust
Sexual immorality
Homosexuality
Covetousness
Maliciousness
Envy
Murder
Strife
Deceit
Evil-mindedness
Unforgiveness
Rebellion
Gossip/slander

Personally, I would rather not see any of these tolerated by General Pace in our military. That does not mean that they don't happen but, as a matter of policy, should they be allowed?

Do we have a "don't ask-don't tell policy" on murder or rebellion? Don't think so.

I'm not going to debate the wisdom of the policy itself since that has been done to death. The current policy is MUCH more lenient than it was originally so I don't think there should be any complaint. But Christians have to go by what the Bible says. We are no more hiding behind it than anyone who abides by guidelines in their lives do.

Personally, it is not my place to judge what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Nevertheless, I do reserve the right to judge what they do in my military because that organization must have a very strict code of conduct in order to do its job properly. A job that is about as important as it gets.

Was moral judgement made about the American soldiers having sex in front of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib?

Maybe you ask this rhetorically but I believe that would be a "yes". The prison got shut down as a result.

I don't think that we are in the position to decrease the number of our troops in the middle of two wars. Two cases in point:

"The military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has led the Pentagon to fire 37 Arabic translators at a time when the military needed them more than ever."

We sure could use a few gay translators at the embassy:
"Jan. 7, 2007 -- There are 1,100 employees in the U.S. embassy in Iraq, all living in the middle of a war among and against Arabic-speaking enemies.

Of those embassy employees, the Iraq Study Group found that only six speak fluent Arabic."

hansel2,

No that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that there was very little "Christian" about your initial comment.

I'll also add that Jesus said "Be angry and sin not."

Righteous anger does not justify a sinful reaction.

Think about it.

hansel, I find the ferocity and invective of your reply telling.

The statement, "I do think that homosexuality is a deviant act and thus immoral" does not a priori compel conclusions about the speaker that you so zealously leap to.

It is not as if there is no solid foundation upon which such a belief lies.

But I guess it's okay (to you) to express hatred for people who thing like that, because, in the context of "hate speech," those views don't count?

How is it that you righties can be so wrong on such a multitude of fronts?

Must be getting really hard to face yourself in the mirror every morning.

One thing we have learned since September 11 is that some in this country do not think there is a role for morality in the military or in politics, at least when it comes to making judgments about some practices of other countries and cultures. They do, however, want to invoke morality when it comes to things like funding entitlements or driving SUVs.

What's the point here? That we should regulate foreign countries but not ourselves?

CB,

Conservatism works every time it is tried. Liberalism quite the opposite.

For a group that is so "wrong on such a multitude of fronts" how is it that our ideological system spawned and sustains western civilization while yours is doing a nice job of tearing it down?

Pride
Idolatry
Lust
Sexual immorality
Homosexuality
Covetousness
Maliciousness
Envy
Murder
Strife
Deceit
Evil-mindedness
Unforgiveness
Rebellion
Gossip/slander

Sounds like the Republican Party platform...

The homosexual ban in the military it really about serving in combat. We don't allow women to serve in combat with men because the sexual intrigue would destroy unit cohesion and effectiveness. Those of you who have been in combat know what I'm talking about. Lets say the unit's leader is gay as are some other members of the unit. Now when you go on patrol you get picked to be on point more than your share of the time and you wonder is the leader making a military decision (you're good on point) or a personal decision (protecting his lovers). You won't know so you have to take steps to protect yourself rather than your unit. Other's see this and do the same. It's every man for himself at this point and the unit is ineffective as a fighting force. Weather it's women or gays, sexual attraction between unit members destroys the cohesion and effectiveness of the unit. Having a military is about winning wars, not about furthering social and political agendas.

Hell, Publicus, that whole list is just what we came up with for the last Democrat president.

hansel2, rant all you want but there is no way you can be a christian, only a pretend christian. Read you bible, something I haven't done in 20 years but I remember part of what I read then.

No one can be a Christian and a homosexual, nor can they be a Christian and support the homosexuals. You can fool yourself and the retarded factor in the country but you will not fool the one person you will eventually face and pay up.

Sorry, but that's just the facts, not up for debate in the bible, no high priced college education interpatation required. You are free to do as you please but don't misuse the bible as an excuse like the terrorists misuse their comic book religion to murder millions of people.

When I was in the USN I had a female service-person tell me she was afraid to take a shower because of the lesbians who lived in her berthing compartment.But who cares-gay rights trumps everything,especially common sense.

No one can be a Christian and a homosexual, nor can they be a Christian and support the homosexuals.

Grew up Congregational, asshole. Yes, that's right, not a very Christian word, but you, old man, are an asshole. You spend most of your time on this blog screaming about your hatred of democrats and, if I'm not mistaken, I recall you once calling for all left-leaning teachers to be put up against a wall and assassinated. Very Christian.

Me? Well, I have tolerance for everyone, I have love for everyone - except those who deride the intolerant. And I've lived my life as a testament to being good to others. And I don't view Christianity as a free ticket to show disdain for my fellow man. And, as far as I'm concerned, those who view being a "good Christian" as showing intolerance and disrespect to others of differing opinions and, for that matter, religions, are the a shame to their religion - and the main reason there's so much strife in this world.

General Pace simply reiterated the language found in Articles 125 and 134 of the UCMJ.

Rather than attack General Pace, his critics in the Congress should change the offending law. Of course, that would leave a paper trail, which might later prove embarrassing.