Gen. Pace is the man!

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

simply, in one sentence: they are dead end of the evolution.

You need to go back to school kiddo. Its obvious from this one simple sentence that you dont understand evolution at all. It is still "just a theory" anyway, right? :roll:

Not only are you a biggot, youre also a stupid one. :thumbsup:

I'm in school, and I've learned about evolution... how gay [immoral] couples can evolve when they can't have kids (that is for now, till crazy gay scientists find the way).

Have you ever considered that word "biggot" doesn't bother them (or us per your claim).. they are just enjoying their opinions and right to have them

Also, it seems that all homosexuals are here, now I know their count on here :sun: ...politics have to be some kind of fagpool.

Because naturally anybody who disagrees with you is gay

Or who doesn't like gays is racist and biggot?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Or who doesn't like gays is racist and biggot?

Well, you wouldn't be racist... but you sure would be a bigot.

Definition of bigot: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

 

[johnnobts]

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

_______________

He's just a man of conviction. He believes homosexuality to be immoral (I agree) and its not something we should celebrate in our military. Nor should anyone who calls himself a Christian. As Paul writes, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil, cling to what is good." that being said, Pace is not the policy maker, he's expressing his opinion, which he certainly has the right to do (as do all citizens in our republic).

 

[johnnobts]

there is a difference b/w not accepting someones behavior and not tolerating it. words have meaning. I tolerate homosexual behavior, people are free to do what they want. I don't accept it or condone it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

_______________

He's just a man of conviction. He believes homosexuality to be immoral (I agree) and its not something we should celebrate in our military. Nor should anyone who calls himself a Christian. As Paul writes, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil, cling to what is good." that being said, Pace is not the policy maker, he's expressing his opinion, which he certainly has the right to do (as do all citizens in our republic).

Are you just trolling again or do you really believe that people of the same sex cannot love each other with purity because some dead guy told you so a couple thousand years ago?

Do you honestly think that two people sharing a common bond (love) is evil and that defiling that common bond is good? If so, your cling-ons need to be eradicated.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

Brave soldier!

Text

Brave soldier??

He is stupid, a moron, and everything else you can think of.

You and everybody else who agrees with are in the same boat.

What I find ironic is the one man who saved tens of thousands and maybe hundres of thousands of allied lives was GAY!!!
Anybody who says gays do not belong in the military are dumber than a box of rocks.

For your reading, but I doubt it will change your little mind

He devised a number of techniques for breaking German ciphers, including the method of the bombe, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine.

Turing was a homosexual during a period when homosexual acts were illegal in England and homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. In 1952, Arnold Murray, a 19-year-old recent acquaintance of his[16] helped an accomplice to break into Turing's house, and Turing went to the police to report the crime. As a result of the police investigation, Turing acknowledged a sexual relationship with Murray, and they were charged with gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. Turing was unrepentant and was convicted. He was given the choice between imprisonment and probation, conditional on him undergoing hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. In order to avoid going to jail, he accepted the oestrogen hormone injections, which lasted for a year, with side effects including the development of breasts. His conviction led to a removal of his security clearance and prevented him from continuing consultancy for GCHQ on cryptographic matters.

In 1954, he died of cyanide poisoning, apparently from a cyanide-laced apple he left half-eaten. The apple itself was never tested for contamination with cyanide, and cyanide poisoning as a cause of death was established by a post-mortem. Most believe that his death was intentional, and the death was ruled a suicide. His mother, however, strenuously argued that the ingestion was accidental due to his careless storage of laboratory chemicals. Biographer Andrew Hodges suggests that Turing may have killed himself in this ambiguous way quite deliberately, to give his mother some plausible deniability.[17] Because Turing's homosexuality would have been perceived as a security risk, the possibility of assassination has also been suggested.[18]

People like you, postmortemIA essentially killed one of the great heros of present time.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The OP is an ignorant bigot. I mean that in the best sense of the phrase - he knows not his own evil.

I should write up a homosexuality 101 FAQ to cover this sort of thread, but homosexuality is not immoral, Pace is also an ignorant bigot, and let's look at the OP's argument: that it's an evolutionary dead end.

1. Thousand of animal species also have a percent of the animals born gay. Evolution and nature have some reason for it.

2. If gays are immoral because of being an evolutionary dead end, then so are those who are born impotent or who are made impotent through treatment of problems - and those who choose not to have children are just making a choice, they are behaving immorally.

We need to get rid of the ignorant bigotry in our society and treat people born gay morally for a change - as equal human beings, and let them marry and have all other equal rights.

I think this post is pretty representative of the big misunderstanding of the great gay debate. There are certainly people who think that gays are immoral by virtue of being gay. However, the majority of people who are perceived as being 'anti-gay' have no problem with gay people. Instead, they think that homosexual acts are immoral. This is the sentiment that General Pace seems to have been conveying. Unfortunately, in today's society, people have forgotten that people can control whether or not they act on their sexual urges: it's unthinkable that someone (gay or straight) might actually choose to refrain from sex. As a result of this attitude, people fail to recognize that people like Gen. Pace would say the exact same thing about heterosexual acts outside of marriage. Calling something immoral does not make him a bigot or hateful. It means that he has a set of values that affects how he perceives things in the realm of ethics and morality. You are free to disagree with him, but there is no basis in his statements for calling him ignorant or a bigot. In fact, in doing so, you are displaying your own ignorance and intolerance.

 

[johnnobts]

Do you honestly think that two people sharing a common bond (love) is evil and that defiling that common bond is good? If so, your cling-ons need to be eradicated.

___________________

sex in and of itself is not love. having a bond of love is not evil, no.

and yes, i hold it to be a self-evident truth that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and contrary to God's design for mankind.

 

[ayabe]

I think it's funny that we base a lot of our Democratic principles on Greek/Roman forms of government, most of our government buildings have Roman influence in their architecture, but the Romans and the Greeks were also notoriously bisexual.

Obviously these 'immoral' people are good for something, eh?

Boggles the mind.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Do you honestly think that two people sharing a common bond (love) is evil and that defiling that common bond is good? If so, your cling-ons need to be eradicated.

___________________

sex in and of itself is not love. having a bond of love is not evil, no.

and yes, i hold it to be a self-evident truth that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and contrary to God's design for mankind.

There are plenty of examples of homosexuality in nature actually.

Man is an animal, don't forget that.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

Brave soldier!

Brave soldier, my ass! Gen. Pace is a bigoted, homophobic prick and far less of a man than we need to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The stupidity of his arrogance and bigotry only weakens our military forces by encouraging continued unwarranted, unfair hatred and malice towards others, and it has already cost the military more than it can afford. From the article at your link:

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

General Pace should be fired immediately for his incompetence. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Conky]

I think a gay military would be fun!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Do you honestly think that two people sharing a common bond (love) is evil and that defiling that common bond is good? If so, your cling-ons need to be eradicated.

___________________

sex in and of itself is not love. having a bond of love is not evil, no.

and yes, i hold it to be a self-evident truth that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and contrary to God's design for mankind.

So the fact that a large number of species within nature engage in homosexual acts....is contrary to nature?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Unfortunately, in today's society, people have forgotten that people can control whether or not they act on their sexual urges: it's unthinkable that someone (gay or straight) might actually choose to refrain from sex. As a result of this attitude, people fail to recognize that people like Gen. Pace would say the exact same thing about heterosexual acts outside of marriage.

This isn't a question of whether they should be out banging every other gay person that they can find. This is a question of whether they have the right afforded to every heterosexual that is a citizen of this country.

Why can't they serve in the military? Is it because Pace is afraid that they might see him in the shower and laugh? Maybe he is afraid of his own feelings and has tendencies that he doesn't really want to confront? Maybe he is just worried that they won't find him attractive and his fragile ego will get hurt?

Why should someone that is BORN HOMOSEXUAL have to abstain from every natural tendency that they have towards who that are attracted to while someone that is "born heterosexual get to act upon theirs without any stigma, name-calling or government intervention telling them that they are not allowed to do what others are allowed to do?

Do you not see the double standard/hypocrisy in that line of "reasoning"?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I think it's funny that we base a lot of our Democratic principles on Greek/Roman forms of government, most of our government buildings have Roman influence in their architecture, but the Romans and the Greeks were also notoriously bisexual.

Obviously these 'immoral' people are good for something, eh?

Boggles the mind.

I would argue that, while our form of government is loosely based on that of the Greeks/early Romans, we have evolved our morality beyond theirs. Or are you really going to argue that the Romans were a moral society?

Man is an animal, don't forget that.

Animals kill each other in nature, too. They eat each other. They kill and eat their own young in some cases. Man is more than an animal, moreso in our sense of right and wrong than perhaps any other facet of being.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Conky
I think a gay military would be fun!

I can't help but :laugh: .

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I understand the reasons or keeping gays out of the military... and I think they are legitimate. But I see nothing inherently immoral about homosexuality. Consenting adults can do what they like.

They can't do something that destabilizes and undermines their country, which this might be the case.

Tell everyone exactly how..

Not your emotional BS.. but logically ..

How homosexuality destabilizes a country

How homosexuality undermines a country .. << Whatever the F that means :laugh:

Is this a Christchinn Country.. Pardner?

Was them Christians killing all the Native Americans

Was them Christians who was murderin them black peoples

Go get em ...

simply, in one sentence: they are dead end of the evolution.

That's BS. You'll find homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Just because it is at a selective disadvantage doesn't mean that homosexuality does not get passed on. If that were true, there would be no sickle-cell anemia.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

simply, in one sentence: they are dead end of the evolution.

You need to go back to school kiddo. Its obvious from this one simple sentence that you dont understand evolution at all. It is still "just a theory" anyway, right? :roll:

Not only are you a biggot, youre also a stupid one. :thumbsup:

I'm in school, and I've learned about evolution... how gay [immoral] couples can evolve when they can't have kids (that is for now, till crazy gay scientists find the way).

Have you ever considered that word "biggot" doesn't bother them (or us per your claim).. they are just enjoying their opinions and right to have them

Also, it seems that all homosexuals are here, now I know their count on here :sun: ...politics have to be some kind of fagpool.

Nah. it's pretty clear from your idiocy that you know nothing about evolution, or how it works

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Craig234
The OP is an ignorant bigot. I mean that in the best sense of the phrase - he knows not his own evil.

I should write up a homosexuality 101 FAQ to cover this sort of thread, but homosexuality is not immoral, Pace is also an ignorant bigot, and let's look at the OP's argument: that it's an evolutionary dead end.

1. Thousand of animal species also have a percent of the animals born gay. Evolution and nature have some reason for it.

2. If gays are immoral because of being an evolutionary dead end, then so are those who are born impotent or who are made impotent through treatment of problems - and those who choose not to have children are just making a choice, they are behaving immorally.

We need to get rid of the ignorant bigotry in our society and treat people born gay morally for a change - as equal human beings, and let them marry and have all other equal rights.

I think this post is pretty representative of the big misunderstanding of the great gay debate. There are certainly people who think that gays are immoral by virtue of being gay. However, the majority of people who are perceived as being 'anti-gay' have no problem with gay people. Instead, they think that homosexual acts are immoral. This is the sentiment that General Pace seems to have been conveying. Unfortunately, in today's society, people have forgotten that people can control whether or not they act on their sexual urges: it's unthinkable that someone (gay or straight) might actually choose to refrain from sex. As a result of this attitude, people fail to recognize that people like Gen. Pace would say the exact same thing about heterosexual acts outside of marriage. Calling something immoral does not make him a bigot or hateful. It means that he has a set of values that affects how he perceives things in the realm of ethics and morality. You are free to disagree with him, but there is no basis in his statements for calling him ignorant or a bigot. In fact, in doing so, you are displaying your own ignorance and intolerance.

Ahhhhh yes, the last refuge of the bigot! To try and point out that those calling him/her a bigot, are in fact the ones who are ignorant and intolerant!

LOL :laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

BTW, did you know there were 65,000 gay military personnel? That's quite a few. Huh.

"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.

WaPo

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
BTW, did you know there were 65,000 gay military personnel? That's quite a few. Huh.

"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.

WaPo

If the current policy is "Don't ask, don't tell" then how do they know how many there are?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Conky

If the current policy is "Don't ask, don't tell" then how do they know how many there are?

Just because you aren't supposed to tell your homophobic "superior" officer....doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to tell others.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ayabe
I think it's funny that we base a lot of our Democratic principles on Greek/Roman forms of government, most of our government buildings have Roman influence in their architecture, but the Romans and the Greeks were also notoriously bisexual.

Obviously these 'immoral' people are good for something, eh?

Boggles the mind.

I would argue that, while our form of government is loosely based on that of the Greeks/early Romans, we have evolved our morality beyond theirs. Or are you really going to argue that the Romans were a moral society?

Man is an animal, don't forget that.

Animals kill each other in nature, too. They eat each other. They kill and eat their own young in some cases. Man is more than an animal, moreso in our sense of right and wrong than perhaps any other facet of being.

I don't need to argue that the Romans were moral, I don't judge morality, all of morality is completely subjective, so it's not my call. Were the Romans immoral when judged by the Judeo-Christian standards of today? Yes, probably they were. But in the that same vein, many of the things that Romans did out in the open without any hangups are still being done today, just behind closed doors.

The fact remains that someone being gay or not doesn't have a positive or negative affect on any of us. It doesn't matter and isn't our business.

Now, does it annoy me sometimes when two guys are on fire in the grocery store carrying little man purses? Sure. But no more so than fat people clogging the isles with their electric carts, or sorority girls dropping f-bombs in the checkout with little kids around or the redneck farting in produce.(I experienced all of these things yesterday at Publix after work). The world is full of things you aren't going to like. You can scowl and rant on a message board, but people are going to be who they want to be and do what they want to do.

For the nature part - we also learn what is right and wrong, it's not an innate ability. A lot of animals are taught their own version of right and wrong. You can train a dog right and wrong.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Conky

If the current policy is "Don't ask, don't tell" then how do they know how many there are?

Just because you aren't supposed to tell your homophobic "superior" officer....doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to tell others.

Then it sounds like they don't follow orders all that well.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Conky
I think a gay military would be fun!

:beer:

 

[whistleclient]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. the OP is from Iowa.

this explains everything.

Heh. Iowa.