Gen. Pace is the man!

[Red Dawn]

This guy is no Leonidas!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
This guy is no Leonidas!

He's no Leonardo, either. In addition to his art, Da Vinci was a prolific and brilliant inventor of a lot of mechanisms, including machines intended for military battle.

Luddites like Pace would probably prefer to boot him out of the service rather than utilize his talents to win a war. As I posted, earlier, That's what happened to 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, who have been discharged because of the "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy.

You want perversion? Why would we want a General in command who'd rather lose a war than win it with the help of people who happen to have other sexual preferences? :roll:

Now, THAT's perverted! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: VisionxOrb
After being in the military I can assure you, there are more gays there per capita than anywhere else and you know what, Im fine with that. One of my best freinds is gay and hes one of the most hardcore soldiers ive ever met.

Things must have changed since I served.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: VisionxOrb
After being in the military I can assure you, there are more gays there per capita than anywhere else and you know what, Im fine with that. One of my best freinds is gay and hes one of the most hardcore soldiers ive ever met.

Things must have changed since I served.

Yeah, they even have 'lectricity!

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: ayabe
What is moral or immoral depends entirely on the paradigm of the times you live in, there is no higher absolute moral code.

*cough* Unprovable Presupposition *cough*

That's OK, but one of is wrong, and neither of us can empirically prove the other wrong. The next step is respect.

Hey I respect him and I bet without a doubt I've supported Cyclo in other threads. In this case we disagree.

I respect any poster who can form a coherent argument without flaming.

There is really only 1 person on here I don't have respect for and his last status was banned, so I'm not sure if he is coming back.

 

[CycloWizard]

Meh. The moral relativism argument is really beyond the scope of this discussion. If I get a chance, I'll have to make it a separate topic sometime soon. The only point I was trying to make in this thread is that there is a difference between saying that homosexual acts are immoral and hating homosexual persons. Hopefully at least this distinction has reached a few people.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Meh. The moral relativism argument is really beyond the scope of this discussion. If I get a chance, I'll have to make it a separate topic sometime soon. The only point I was trying to make in this thread is that there is a difference between saying that homosexual acts are immoral and hating homosexual persons. Hopefully at least this distinction has reached a few people.

Disagreement arises however when people who do not think homosexual acts are immoral view your "request" that homosexuals abstain from the sex acts they want to commit with consenting adults to the detriment of no other person as an "edict" that is at the least unfair and at the most exclusionary and bigoted.

 

[piasabird]

When I think of this stupid, "Dont Ask, Dont Tell", policy, I think it is very bad for both Straight and Gay people.

This policy says it is OK to hide who and what you are, and it is okay to live your life as one big lie. It is a policy that sets Gays up for failure. How can you be expected to be Gay and somehow hide your true self and live in the closet inside the military? It is not natural. Gay people should be allowed to be who and what they are. Either Openly accept Gays in the Military or openly Refuse to accept Gays into the military. This middle of the road policy is a stupid idea.

So when a Gay person finally accidently says they went out to a gay bar or shows affection to a partner, then their commanders are forced to follow their regulations and kick them out. The Commanders are bound by their Oath of Office to uphold the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and convene a Courts Marshall, and kick them out of the service using some disciplinary action.

All of this just causes a legal nightmare.

I was a Sergeant in the US Army. I have seen this Military Legal Machine in action. The average soldier stands no chance when their commanders want to get rid of them. It is a disciplinary authoritarian style of leadership. It has to be that way to keep discipline and morale and order. When you are caught in the cogs of the military legal system, you have almost no legal rights.

 

[miketheidiot]

i can't believe that this thread didn't get locked at trollbait.

and no i'm not planning on actually contributing anything. Sorry.

 

[SolMiester]

deleted!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Termagant
Disagreement arises however when people who do not think homosexual acts are immoral view your "request" that homosexuals abstain from the sex acts they want to commit with consenting adults to the detriment of no other person as an "edict" that is at the least unfair and at the most exclusionary and bigoted.

You can ask me to do whatever you want. I can choose to do it or not. Your asking does not imply that you hate me. For example, if I turn around and ask someone to be quiet at the movies (which is an all-too-common necessity these days, at least here), I'm asking someone who obviously disagrees with my view that movies should be enjoyed by everyone to abide by my belief. This doesn't mean that I hate the person or that I'm bigoted against people who feel that it's cool to answer their cell phone in the theater. The person who is talking on their cell phone during the movie either thinks it doesn't hurt anyone else or doesn't care. Gen. Pace has been in the military a long time and went through hell like every other marine (yes, even the officers go through the whole shebang in the USMC), so he probably has some insight as to whether this policy is beneficial. Is he right or wrong? I don't know. Does this make him an ignorant bigot? I think not.

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Meh. The moral relativism argument is really beyond the scope of this discussion. If I get a chance, I'll have to make it a separate topic sometime soon. The only point I was trying to make in this thread is that there is a difference between saying that homosexual acts are immoral and hating homosexual persons. Hopefully at least this distinction has reached a few people.

I completely agree with you here. I suspect that you may actually support gay marriage (do you?), but I think that your defense of the right to a differing opinion, even from your own is commendable and very telling. Way to go. It's the party-fanaticism, from both sides, which kills progress more than anything else I think.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Termagant
Disagreement arises however when people who do not think homosexual acts are immoral view your "request" that homosexuals abstain from the sex acts they want to commit with consenting adults to the detriment of no other person as an "edict" that is at the least unfair and at the most exclusionary and bigoted.

You can ask me to do whatever you want. I can choose to do it or not. Your asking does not imply that you hate me. For example, if I turn around and ask someone to be quiet at the movies (which is an all-too-common necessity these days, at least here), I'm asking someone who obviously disagrees with my view that movies should be enjoyed by everyone to abide by my belief. This doesn't mean that I hate the person or that I'm bigoted against people who feel that it's cool to answer their cell phone in the theater. The person who is talking on their cell phone during the movie either thinks it doesn't hurt anyone else or doesn't care. Gen. Pace has been in the military a long time and went through hell like every other marine (yes, even the officers go through the whole shebang in the USMC), so he probably has some insight as to whether this policy is beneficial. Is he right or wrong? I don't know. Does this make him an ignorant bigot? I think not.

What would this insight be? Would someone who lived in the segregationist south have insight into the effects of black people being integrated with whites, or would they just have a load of presumptions based on community folk tales?

I spent almost 7 years in the navy, and I saw a lot of gay people, and a lot of homophobia. I gained no unique insight on the status of gays in the military from it, all I know is that giving into homophobia and ignorance should not be an option.

(note: not trying to make any larger statement on race and homosexuality with my example.. but I think it is a reasonable one)

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I completely agree with you here. I suspect that you may actually support gay marriage (do you?), but I think that your defense of the right to a differing opinion, even from your own is commendable and very telling. Way to go. It's the party-fanaticism, from both sides, which kills progress more than anything else I think.

My real position is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The only reason they are in it as far as I know is for tax reasons, but I don't think being married has a significant effect on taxes except that it allows joint filing.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I completely agree with you here. I suspect that you may actually support gay marriage (do you?), but I think that your defense of the right to a differing opinion, even from your own is commendable and very telling. Way to go. It's the party-fanaticism, from both sides, which kills progress more than anything else I think.

My real position is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The only reason they are in it as far as I know is for tax reasons, but I don't think being married has a significant effect on taxes except that it allows joint filing.

So you believe it should be just a Religious Institution?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What would this insight be? Would someone who lived in the segregationist south have insight into the effects of black people being integrated with whites, or would they just have a load of presumptions based on community folk tales?

I spent almost 7 years in the navy, and I saw a lot of gay people, and a lot of homophobia. I gained no unique insight on the status of gays in the military from it, all I know is that giving into homophobia and ignorance should not be an option.

(note: not trying to make any larger statement on race and homosexuality with my example.. but I think it is a reasonable one)

I'm not sure what the insight would be. I would assume that he's been in the military for at least 30 years to get where he is, and he's probably been in a policy-making position for 5-10. Thus, he has probably thought about the ramifications of this issue for a long, long time. I guess I hope he has some insight, though like I said, I'm not sure what it would be.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe it should be just a Religious Institution?

I believe it should be a non-governmental institution. If a non-religious group wants to marry people, that's fine I suppose. I just don't see why the government should be involved.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe it should be just a Religious Institution?

I believe it should be a non-governmental institution. If a non-religious group wants to marry people, that's fine I suppose. I just don't see why the government should be involved.

OK that's fair. That also means that along with Athiests, Gays should be able to get married.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe it should be just a Religious Institution?

I believe it should be a non-governmental institution. If a non-religious group wants to marry people, that's fine I suppose. I just don't see why the government should be involved.

If you're putting forward this argument without the usual rider of 'and Churches should own the word marriage', then I'm perfectly willing to go along with that. It's not the 'only acceptable solution', but it's one acceptable solution.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
OK that's fair. That also means that along with Athiests, Gays should be able to get married.

Yep, that would be the corollary of my position. The other consequence is that I will no longer be forced to subsidize married persons' relationships, be they gay or straight.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If you're putting forward this argument without the usual rider of 'and Churches should own the word marriage', then I'm perfectly willing to go along with that. It's not the 'only acceptable solution', but it's one acceptable solution.

No - any group should be able to marry people if they so choose. There is no legal governance on churches marrying people now as far as I know. Practically, if marriage was restricted to churches, someone would just make a new church that would marry anyone, any time.

 

[rchiu]

People need to understand that "morally correct" is just some people's opinion. It shouldn't be extended into Laws or restriction that apply to everyone. For me, drinking or spending excessively is morally incorrect. That's my believe and opinion, but I understand that not everyone feels the same way. The most I will go is I will tell my kids not to do it, I am not gonna tell everyone not to do it.

Can't people just keep what they believe to themselves and not ask everyone to follow it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: rchiu
People need to understand that "morally correct" is just some people's opinion. It shouldn't be extended into Laws or restriction that apply to everyone. For me, drinking or spending excessively is morally incorrect. That's my believe and opinion, but I understand that not everyone feels the same way. The most I will go is I will tell my kids not to do it, I am not gonna tell everyone not to do it.

Can't people just keep what they believe to themselves and not ask everyone to follow it?

The law is the codification of what the society considers 'moral'. It's completely misdirected to say that it shouldn't be extended into law, as if I simply don't try to codify my morals, someone else's morals will instead be forced on me.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: rchiu
People need to understand that "morally correct" is just some people's opinion. It shouldn't be extended into Laws or restriction that apply to everyone. For me, drinking or spending excessively is morally incorrect. That's my believe and opinion, but I understand that not everyone feels the same way. The most I will go is I will tell my kids not to do it, I am not gonna tell everyone not to do it.

Can't people just keep what they believe to themselves and not ask everyone to follow it?

The law is the codification of what the society considers 'moral'. It's completely misdirected to say that it shouldn't be extended into law, as if I simply don't try to codify my morals, someone else's morals will instead be forced on me.

Nope, the law is there to protect people's right, not to extend what people consider "moral". You can have your beliefs, so as the gay people. Both rights are protected under law. But Law is not there to serve your belief, extend your belief and force your belief upon others.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually rchiu Cyclo is right (at least about fundamental laws. whether or not our morality comes into section 110B of the patent code is debateable) The law protecting our beliefs comes from our shared morality that free expression is important. That's all laws are.

 

[DealMonkey]

I would venture to say that while calling someone's behavior "immoral" isn't the same as hating that person, it's hardly a tolerant position to take. By claiming someone is behaving immorally, you are passing judgment and declaring them to be in violating of an even higher law than our country's legal system. As some religious extremists would insist, God's law trumps our earthly legal system. Again, not exactly a tolerant position. Now keeping in mind that a bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and all semantic wrangling by CW aside, General Pace is most certainly a bigot as is anyone who passes judgment in a similar manner. End of story. You may not like being labeled a bigot, but as they say ... if the shoe fits wear it.