Author Topic: Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral (Read 26720 times)

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #150 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:16:29 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:12:04 AM

You guys can keep arguing about this till the cows come home, but:

1. nothing will change the fact that "militarymuscle69" is a bigot with an irrational fear of buttsex and gay, which he disguises as "morality," and

2. the thread has gone off-topic. Pace's comments were out of line, not because of their content, but because as a military official, he is not supposed to give his personal opinion, just execute orders from his civilian overlords.

Talk about "supporting the troops"... they should change that slogan to "support the white heterosexual troops only"...

I'm not a bigot but thanks for taking the time to read my real thoughts on the subject. And general Pace wasn't giving his personal opinion. He was staing fact on why the military doesn't allow gays to serve openly.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #151 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:19:33 AM »

Re General Pace: funny how homosexual sex is a crime in the military, but calling this crime "immoral" is a no no.

That said, I'm sure he now realizes he has to be much more careful with his public comments.

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #152 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:21:23 AM »

It was his personal opinion: he called it "immoral." Since when does the government of the United States or any of its branches legislate morality?

Since General Pace is now a moral visionary, what are his positions on divorce, abortion, and contraception? What are the US armed forces' positions on these topics? Are they enforced in the military? Is an individual who uses contraception allowed to serve? What about divorced individuals?

OzmO · « **Reply #153 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:22:18 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 15, 2007, 07:55:15 AM

OzmO I answered this all day yesterday you are just to stupid to see it. Your statement was that HOMOSEXUALITY DOESN'T HAVE VICTIMS. Was that or was that not what you said. I showed several instances where homosexuality produces hundreds of thousands of victims. After I proved that wrong, YOU brought up the idea that monogomous gays don't have victims. I produced 2 quotes. One dealing with cancer, the other with STDs. You only skim read the first quote obviously.

You can draw what ever connection you want, but it's insignificant.

there's a big difference between, murder, theft, etc... victim and to consenting gay men deciding to have sex and risk the 35 in 100,000 of getting anal cancer....

So yes, you made the point that there are victims of anal sex, but you are, as usual, avoiding the fact that a percentage of straight couples engage in it also.

ALL of which is pale in comparison to rape murder etc.....

And this is what you are touting as a point made?

pathetic.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #154 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:22:18 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:21:23 AM

It was his personal opinion: he called it "immoral." Since when does the government of the United States or any of its branches legislate morality?

1776?

OzmO · « **Reply #155 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:24:06 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 15, 2007, 08:16:29 AM

I'm not a bigot but thanks for taking the time to read my real thoughts on the subject. And general Pace wasn't giving his personal opinion. He was staing fact on why the military doesn't allow gays to serve openly.

guess no one is buying your BULL SHIT hehehe homophobe.

How pathetic you are.

desk jockey sits in fear or getting butt raped.

He was stating fact?

Only a BWD-NIT idiot would think that.

go back to your barracks little boy.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #156 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:26:21 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on March 15, 2007, 08:24:06 AM

guess no one is buying your BULL SHIT hehehe homophobe.

How pathetic you are.

desk jockey sits in fear or getting butt raped.

He was stating fact?

Only a BWD-NIT idiot would think that.

go back to your barracks little boy.

"Homophobe" defined as anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle?

OzmO · « **Reply #157 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:29:34 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on March 15, 2007, 08:26:21 AM

"Homophobe" defined as anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle?

No he's masking the fact that he fears them.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #158 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:31:27 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on March 15, 2007, 08:29:34 AM

No he's masking the fact that he fears them.

He didn't say he is afraid to serve with homosexuals.

OzmO · « **Reply #159 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:33:50 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on March 15, 2007, 08:31:27 AM

He didn't say he is afraid to serve with homosexuals.

he's afraid of them, and yes, it's my opinion, based on everything he's posted on this subject in addition to his attitude in a display towards women.

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #160 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:35:16 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:21:23 AM

It was his personal opinion: he called it "immoral." Since when does the government of the United States or any of its branches legislate morality?

Since General Pace is now a moral visionary, what are his positions on divorce, abortion, and contraception? What are the US armed forces' positions on these topics? Are they enforced in the military? Is an individual who uses contraception allowed to serve? What about divorced individuals?

Since militarymuscle69 has nothing to say in response to this post, I conclude that he has seen the fault in his reasoning.

OzmO · « **Reply #161 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:38:11 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:35:16 AM

Since militarymuscle69 has nothing to say in response to this post, I conclude that he has seen the fault in his reasoning.

The vast majority of people in that mind frame can't see their faults even when it hits them between the eyes.

I'm sure he'll post. He's either trying to explain to his D.O. why he's on the a non-goverment site so much or he's frantically trying to find a witty come back.

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #162 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:39:27 AM »

My point is simple: military officials have no business dictating morality to their subordinates.

OzmO · « **Reply #163 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:40:26 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:39:27 AM

My point is simple: military officials have no business dictating morality to their subordinates.

I agree with you unless it comes to: murder, theft, rape etc....

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #164 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:40:56 AM »

That's not morality, that's criminality.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #165 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:41:05 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:39:27 AM

My point is simple: military officials have no business dictating morality to their subordinates.

What about the fact that homosexual sex is a crime in the military? Divorce, abortion, and contraception are not.

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #166 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:42:13 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:35:16 AM

Since militarymuscle69 has nothing to say in response to this post, I conclude that he has seen the fault in his reasoning.

Nope just had to shit. Beach said it best. Since it is a fact that homosexual sex is illegal in the military then illegal=immoral. So pace was staing fact when he called it immoral.

OzmO · « **Reply #167 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:42:31 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:40:56 AM

That's not morality, that's criminality.

ok

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #168 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:43:12 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on March 15, 2007, 08:22:18 AM

You can draw what ever connection you want, but it's insignificant.

there's a big difference between, murder, theft, etc... victim and to consenting gay men deciding to have sex and risk the 35 in 100,000 of getting anal cancer....

So yes, you made the point that there are victims of anal sex, but you are, as usual, avoiding the fact that a percentage of straight couples engage in it also.

ALL of which is pale in comparison to rape murder etc.....

And this is what you are touting as a point made?

pathetic.

You are funny. You said no victims, I showed victims. Again you resort to name calling after being proven wrong

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #169 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:46:10 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on March 15, 2007, 08:41:05 AM

What about the fact that homosexual sex is a crime in the military? Divorce, abortion, and contraception are not.

That is irrelevant. Pace called the orientation "immoral," not the act. So if you are a homosexual who does not have sex at all, you are still immoral.

Plus, the "don't ask don't tell" policy states that if a homosexual's orientation is discovered, you will be fired. So a homosexual who doesn't have any homosexual sex at all can be discharged, just because his superior officer discovers that at one point, prior to joining the army, he or she had a romantic partner of the same sex.

OzmO · « **Reply #170 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:47:04 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 15, 2007, 08:43:12 AM

You are funny. You said no victims, I showed victims. Again you resort to name calling after being proven wrong

can you read?

Guess not.

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #171 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:47:52 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:46:10 AM

That is irrelevant. Pace called the orientation "immoral," not the act. So if you are a homosexual who does not have sex at all, you are still immoral.

Plus, the "don't ask don't tell" policy states that if a homosexual's orientation is discovered, you will be fired. So a homosexual who doesn't have any homosexual sex at all can be discharged, just because his superior officer discovers that at one point, prior to joining the army, he or she had a romantic partner of the same sex.

and they knew that prior to joining

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #172 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:49:28 AM »

So, militarymuscle69, if a homosexual person decides to join the military to serve their country, and agrees to keep their orientation secret during their military service, and not have any sex at all with a partner of the same sex, you will still call them "immoral" and want them to be discharged from the military?

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #173 on:** March 15, 2007, 08:52:28 AM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on March 15, 2007, 08:49:28 AM

So, militarymuscle69, if a homosexual person decides to join the military to serve their country, and agrees to keep their orientation secret during their military service, and not have any sex at all with a partner of the same sex, you will still call them "immoral" and want them to be discharged from the military?

actually no. and I have addressed this. I currently work with a gay man.....I'll let you key in on the fact I haven't ratted him out.

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #174 on:** March 15, 2007, 09:03:43 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 15, 2007, 08:52:28 AM

actually no. and I have addressed this. I currently work with a gay man.....I'll let you key in on the fact I haven't ratted him out.

How incredibly generous of you...