Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Chicago Tribune yesterday that he opposes any change to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bars service by openly gay soldiers. General Pace, a Marine officer, explained why he supported the current policy:
“I believe homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”
“I believe homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”
WOW!!! OUT-FREAKING-STANDING!!! Finally a leader not afraid to tell it like it is!!! God Bless you General! You'll probably catch hell from the gay mafia but it is refreshing to see man of integrity stand up for what he believes in. Homosexuality is an immoral,unnatural, deviant act that needs to be put back into the closet. General you are a stand up man worthy of a bar full of beers on me!
Below are some whacked out posts from the left side of the moon. the usual homophobic trash. IT isn't an issue of homophobic but homo-intolerant or immoral intolerant. I love the one post(#6) that asks why we need morals. (Hilarious)
1.
March 13th,200710:54 am
Just another intolerant jerk in the Bush administration.
Funny, the Israeli army allows openly gay people to serve and its only one of the most effective military forces in the world.
— Posted by IHateBUSH
2.
March 13th,200710:59 am
Our homophobic military vents through homoerotic cruelty. Read: Abu Gharib.
— Posted by Jacob
3.
March 13th,200711:03 am
Interesting to learn, from a Marine who is trained to murder, what’s considered immoral.
— Posted by DK
4.
March 13th,200711:05 am
I think Gen. Pace is homophobic and a bit of a wacky religico, but I also think he’s right that the policy shouldn’t change. Mainly because of Mr. Moskos’ points. Realistically, homophobia is the norm. It shouldn’t be, but it certainly is. Thus, openly gay people in the armed forces would be a negative in a variety of ways. Homophobes wouldn’t join up, and they are the majority. Those in the services would quit early. Our army would be less well regarded world wide (homophobia being the norm everywhere). I believe the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is the only workable one, the other option being no gays in the military at all.
If there are gay activists who take offense at my words, I think they’re unwilling to accept reality. And I used to be an activist myself (although straight), but when the gay marriage thing got kicked up right before the 2004 election and handed the moron Bush the presidency, I was so incensed that I lost all interest in gay issues, and will not support them until there are no issues of more importance. For example, a functional, respected army is a whole lot more important than having one with transvestite paratroopers.
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
5.
March 13th,200711:06 am
Since when did General Pace become an expert on what is immoral? Who really cares what he thinks? His views are archaic, homophobic and downright biggoted, based on nothing but his own small minded, pathetically narrow view of right and wrong. It’s been proven in a number of other countries that gays in the military work just fine.
— Posted by Sam Sommer
6.
March 13th,200711:06 am
Why are people so fixed on the idea of morality? Do we need morals to be American, and who wrote the book of morals? Why is sexuality even an issue in the military? Why is homosexuality deemed immoral? Who said it is? Moses? The Prophets? People need to take their heads out of those holy books and get a dose of reality. There are probably more gays in the military than you think. Homosexuality is totally natural and the people who profecy against it are always the biggest ones. Let the gay people fight for their country openly. Real straight people don’t care about gay people and their issues. Gay people are human just like everyone else and homosexuality is natural, so let them fight. They vote and pay taxes so let them fight openly.
— Posted by Monte Brown
7.
March 13th,200711:12 am
From a purely practical standpoint, it’s ridiculous to be discharging soldiers with crucial skills when the military is deployed for two long-term commitments. It’s entirely possible that soldiers have been wounded or killed because the Arabic-speaking soldier who could have translated a key piece of intel had been discharged from duty. From a philosophical standpoint, generals should be telling the American people what’s moral or immoral. It should be the other way around. And more and more, Americans seem to have different view than Gen. Pace does.
— Posted by jone
8.
March 13th,200711:14 am
Intolerant? I’m happy that our General is honest about his personal feelings and not trying to be politically correct.
Is it your job to tell someone else what they think is immoral?
I’d much rather send my son into battle behind an honest leader than a politically correct leader.
— Posted by Lars
9.
March 13th,200711:16 am
The british army has in fact gone out of its way to recruit GLBT persons
http://www.rense.com/general67/oeo.htm
and for a more scholary look at the effect of GLBT persons in the australian, canadian, british and israli armies
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03summer/ belkin.pdf
Findings: no adverse effect
— Posted by Greg Johnson
10.
March 13th,200711:17 am
so if understand it correctly - it’s ok to recruit felons, criminals and drug users with absolutely no education but homosexual linguists are ruining the army.
i wonder how many homosexuals were among the soldiers that raped the 14 year old iraqi girl.
— Posted by s david
11.
March 13th,200711:19 am
While General Pace’s remarks are clueless and offensive, the truly contemptible statements here are the ones attributed to Charles Moskos, the “sociologist” from Northwestern University. If ever academic credentials provided a thin veneer for dogma and hatred. . . I hope those in the Northwestern community will properly put him to shame.
— Posted by GetReal
12.
March 13th,200711:19 am
I am in the Army. I am training to be an officer. I am supposed to learn about all the Army policies and uphold each one. Personally I think homosexuality is a sin and an immorality. I would not be comfortable living in close quarters with an actively homosexual person serving under my comand.
When I enlisted and BEFORE I swore an oath to defend my county, I was told that homosexuality is not something that the military likes. So did everybody who enlisted (everyone INCLUDING any openly and non-openly homosexual recruit).
By hiding the fact that they are a member of the homosexual community they are lying to the Army, just so they get to enlist. Then when I become an officer along with and all the other men and women under my command, are supposed to be ok with this homosexual American soldier and let them carry on with their sexual debauchery?
I will try to treat all soldiers under my command fairly, but if anyone does something agains the rules across the board, I will make sure he or she is disciplined according to Army regulations and standards.
— Posted by MV
13.
March 13th,200711:19 am
The general is 100% correct!Its about time someone confronts PC on this issue.I would say that Homosexuality is more than Immoral, it certainly qualifies more as a disorder more than many current disorders!Rather than accept Homosexuality ….We as Americans should offer council or medical help to them.
— Posted by Martin Sanders
14.
March 13th,200711:21 am
Many of the western armed forces allow (in fact promote) gays in the military. For example, Canada, Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and probably many others. Their are gay Brits serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and gay Canadians serving in Afghanistan along side US soldiers without any affect on the US military!
— Posted by Jim Elliott
15.
March 13th,200711:21 am
No not an intolerant jerk but a person who obviously believes differently than you when it comes to the nature of being homosexual. An no this is not a person in the “Bush Administration” but rather a career officer who started long before W became President.
“Funny” but ask the soldiers who are defending your right to free speech and they will tell you that they feel the same way as the General. Since they are the ones putting their lives on the line it would seem that theirs is the most important opinion of all, or would you call them just more “intolerant jerks” in the “Bush Administration”?
— Posted by Give Me A Break
March 13th,200710:54 am
Just another intolerant jerk in the Bush administration.
Funny, the Israeli army allows openly gay people to serve and its only one of the most effective military forces in the world.
— Posted by IHateBUSH
2.
March 13th,200710:59 am
Our homophobic military vents through homoerotic cruelty. Read: Abu Gharib.
— Posted by Jacob
3.
March 13th,200711:03 am
Interesting to learn, from a Marine who is trained to murder, what’s considered immoral.
— Posted by DK
4.
March 13th,200711:05 am
I think Gen. Pace is homophobic and a bit of a wacky religico, but I also think he’s right that the policy shouldn’t change. Mainly because of Mr. Moskos’ points. Realistically, homophobia is the norm. It shouldn’t be, but it certainly is. Thus, openly gay people in the armed forces would be a negative in a variety of ways. Homophobes wouldn’t join up, and they are the majority. Those in the services would quit early. Our army would be less well regarded world wide (homophobia being the norm everywhere). I believe the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is the only workable one, the other option being no gays in the military at all.
If there are gay activists who take offense at my words, I think they’re unwilling to accept reality. And I used to be an activist myself (although straight), but when the gay marriage thing got kicked up right before the 2004 election and handed the moron Bush the presidency, I was so incensed that I lost all interest in gay issues, and will not support them until there are no issues of more importance. For example, a functional, respected army is a whole lot more important than having one with transvestite paratroopers.
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
5.
March 13th,200711:06 am
Since when did General Pace become an expert on what is immoral? Who really cares what he thinks? His views are archaic, homophobic and downright biggoted, based on nothing but his own small minded, pathetically narrow view of right and wrong. It’s been proven in a number of other countries that gays in the military work just fine.
— Posted by Sam Sommer
6.
March 13th,200711:06 am
Why are people so fixed on the idea of morality? Do we need morals to be American, and who wrote the book of morals? Why is sexuality even an issue in the military? Why is homosexuality deemed immoral? Who said it is? Moses? The Prophets? People need to take their heads out of those holy books and get a dose of reality. There are probably more gays in the military than you think. Homosexuality is totally natural and the people who profecy against it are always the biggest ones. Let the gay people fight for their country openly. Real straight people don’t care about gay people and their issues. Gay people are human just like everyone else and homosexuality is natural, so let them fight. They vote and pay taxes so let them fight openly.
— Posted by Monte Brown
7.
March 13th,200711:12 am
From a purely practical standpoint, it’s ridiculous to be discharging soldiers with crucial skills when the military is deployed for two long-term commitments. It’s entirely possible that soldiers have been wounded or killed because the Arabic-speaking soldier who could have translated a key piece of intel had been discharged from duty. From a philosophical standpoint, generals should be telling the American people what’s moral or immoral. It should be the other way around. And more and more, Americans seem to have different view than Gen. Pace does.
— Posted by jone
8.
March 13th,200711:14 am
Intolerant? I’m happy that our General is honest about his personal feelings and not trying to be politically correct.
Is it your job to tell someone else what they think is immoral?
I’d much rather send my son into battle behind an honest leader than a politically correct leader.
— Posted by Lars
9.
March 13th,200711:16 am
The british army has in fact gone out of its way to recruit GLBT persons
http://www.rense.com/general67/oeo.htm
and for a more scholary look at the effect of GLBT persons in the australian, canadian, british and israli armies
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03summer/ belkin.pdf
Findings: no adverse effect
— Posted by Greg Johnson
10.
March 13th,200711:17 am
so if understand it correctly - it’s ok to recruit felons, criminals and drug users with absolutely no education but homosexual linguists are ruining the army.
i wonder how many homosexuals were among the soldiers that raped the 14 year old iraqi girl.
— Posted by s david
11.
March 13th,200711:19 am
While General Pace’s remarks are clueless and offensive, the truly contemptible statements here are the ones attributed to Charles Moskos, the “sociologist” from Northwestern University. If ever academic credentials provided a thin veneer for dogma and hatred. . . I hope those in the Northwestern community will properly put him to shame.
— Posted by GetReal
12.
March 13th,200711:19 am
I am in the Army. I am training to be an officer. I am supposed to learn about all the Army policies and uphold each one. Personally I think homosexuality is a sin and an immorality. I would not be comfortable living in close quarters with an actively homosexual person serving under my comand.
When I enlisted and BEFORE I swore an oath to defend my county, I was told that homosexuality is not something that the military likes. So did everybody who enlisted (everyone INCLUDING any openly and non-openly homosexual recruit).
By hiding the fact that they are a member of the homosexual community they are lying to the Army, just so they get to enlist. Then when I become an officer along with and all the other men and women under my command, are supposed to be ok with this homosexual American soldier and let them carry on with their sexual debauchery?
I will try to treat all soldiers under my command fairly, but if anyone does something agains the rules across the board, I will make sure he or she is disciplined according to Army regulations and standards.
— Posted by MV
13.
March 13th,200711:19 am
The general is 100% correct!Its about time someone confronts PC on this issue.I would say that Homosexuality is more than Immoral, it certainly qualifies more as a disorder more than many current disorders!Rather than accept Homosexuality ….We as Americans should offer council or medical help to them.
— Posted by Martin Sanders
14.
March 13th,200711:21 am
Many of the western armed forces allow (in fact promote) gays in the military. For example, Canada, Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and probably many others. Their are gay Brits serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and gay Canadians serving in Afghanistan along side US soldiers without any affect on the US military!
— Posted by Jim Elliott
15.
March 13th,200711:21 am
No not an intolerant jerk but a person who obviously believes differently than you when it comes to the nature of being homosexual. An no this is not a person in the “Bush Administration” but rather a career officer who started long before W became President.
“Funny” but ask the soldiers who are defending your right to free speech and they will tell you that they feel the same way as the General. Since they are the ones putting their lives on the line it would seem that theirs is the most important opinion of all, or would you call them just more “intolerant jerks” in the “Bush Administration”?
— Posted by Give Me A Break
0 comments:
Post a Comment