ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/22/2018 11:34 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.443 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/13/2007 07:56 PM ID: 60969 Permalink   

It's Not OK to be Gay in the Army of the USA

 

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, has declared that gays in the military are immoral and that openly gay soldiers should not serve. He also compared homosexual acts to adultery.

Pace was defended by his senior staff members Monday, who stated that this was an expression of his personal opinion. He is not considering apologizing for his comments.

Although gay groups are highly upset over Pace's remarks, he is quoted as saying that "...we should not condone immoral acts... I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

 
  Source: www.torontodailynews.com  
    WebReporter: Mister crank Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  21 Comments
  
  So Then .........  
 
........... it's immoral to be gay, but moral to kill people.

And another note - a gay an is just absolutely incapabal of being a sildier isn't he/she. Damn thing is, gunner on my tank squad (way .... way ... back)was known gayy - trusted him with my very life, as well as did the rest of the crew/squad/platoon. And the dude could shoot a friggen tank gun I tell ya !!

I bet .......... Peter Pace recently had his first gay experienced ..... and fears he LIKED IT !!!
 
  by: Discarded Vet   03/13/2007 08:50 PM     
  LOL @ DiscardedVet  
 
I think you're on to something with Pace there. I've
often wondered if Rummy isn't just a deeply, deeply
closeted f*g who hates what he is, and that's the
source of his evil. Sorry to all gay people everywhere
for suggesting Rummy might be in the club...
 
  by: Mister crank     03/13/2007 09:16 PM     
  Personal views should not affect policy.  
 
General Pace says these were personal views, but he went on to say that there is a responsibility to act upon them. That makes them policy. Frankly, I think Pace ought to have more pressing things to be concerned about than either homosexuality OR adultery. Those are hardly the greatest moral or ethical issues in the present conflicts, or even in present recruitment.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/13/2007 11:27 PM     
  This man  
 
should be removed from his job. How can those soldiers who are gay trust this man to be in command and look out for them?

He's an idiot!
 
  by: Flutje   03/13/2007 11:40 PM     
  I See How It Is Now  
 
Gay people are stupid.
Gay people ae illiterate.
Gay people are terrorists.

That is what I read between the lines of this comment .........

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated:

"We need the most talented people; we need the language skills. We need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population,"
 
  by: Discarded Vet   03/13/2007 11:44 PM     
  as often as  
 
SN commentators with differing viewpoints slam each other about how personal views shouldn't raise any type of concern, I'm glad to see MomentofClarity stick to his guns, but as this thread goes on I wait to see how the argument plays out. One thing I note already is the obvious understanding that if a person that has convictions, denies him/herself to act in accordance with those convictions, that person has just compromised their own credibility...not remaining true to themselves. Can you 'long-term' trust anyone in any capacity who can easily do this?
 
  by: crosimoto     03/13/2007 11:49 PM     
  I'll bite..  
 
In that case, anyone who can't manage to separate their personal beliefs from their professional life, should seek a job where that lack of separation/professionalism either has no impact or is beneficial.
 
  by: StarShadow     03/14/2007 12:02 AM     
  Let's be positive  
 
It doesn't affect the quality of a solider if they are gay; but on a good note if you are openly gay then you don't have to serve in the war.

 
  by: melissamiranda     03/14/2007 12:19 AM     
  @StarShadow  
 
Thanks,
that's exactly some people's point on why a Christian/Atheist/??whatever?? shouldn't serve in political office. From this line of thinking I deduce that people can basically only do what they want to do and hope to earn a living doing it. BECAUSE if you serve another/society in any capacity, it is implied that your service is based on some sort of expectancies, and if you have any consciencious objection to even the smallest point, which you obviously can't separate than you shouldn't be asked to deny or compromise your integrity. A very pontificacious way to tout a bunch of CRAP!
 
  by: crosimoto     03/14/2007 12:52 AM     
  I'll Bite  
 
I could care less what religious or non religious beliefs someone has. When you are doing your job and you have to deal with protecting our military your beliefs mean shit. Anyone in his position should not put his beliefs into the equation. He is there to protect and serve the men and women that are serving our country regardless of religious, sexual or racial make up.

The men and women that serve are doing a duty, one that they should never have been put in the first place. To say stuff like this has to have an affect on the morale of the soldiers. I hear people say if you are against the war you are against the soldiers, well if you are against a population of the soldiers what does that make you?

As for his moral beliefs how many men and women fighting end up losing their marriages, have affairs or even rape and face accusations of raping those we are there to help? Does he think it is immoral for two unmarried soldiers to sleep with each other? What about two soldiers that are married to others having an affair? I could tell stories that would make me blush and I am one of the most open people to talk about sexuality. I know many members of a specific unit and kept contact with them during their first and second tours, I will on their third also. But the stuff that goes on over there could curl the toes of the religious right.
 
  by: TaraB     03/14/2007 01:10 AM     
  Thank god...  
 
there will always be people there like Pace to protect America : Land of the free :)
 
  by: dook   03/14/2007 01:14 AM     
  Apparently  
 
I missed school the day they told us the definition of “immoral”. I thought it was something completely different.
 
  by: Valkyrie123     03/14/2007 02:37 AM     
  I still find it odd  
 
that they are complaining about not having enough recruits and elimnating a rather large group of potential soldiers. From the other stories here it seems that they will let in druggies and the mentally unstable. What's wrong with a gay?
 
  by: jaded fox     03/14/2007 12:50 PM     
  hmm  
 
Well all the soldiers that want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan could just pretend they are gay or lesbian and get out, since its not ok for gays to server in the military. Hell thats what I would do to get out.
 
  by: greatwarrior1   03/14/2007 03:36 PM     
  applause...  
 
Gays don't care much about how offensisve their little revolution is to the majority of Canadians. Anyone who disagrees with the gay political agenda is labled as 'homophobic'. That term is intended to be a tarbrush and is just as demeaning and presumptious as any slander anywhere. It is every bit as offensive as the term 'f*ggot' and for all the same reasons.

Gays are not expected to feel shame but they want to promote shame for anyone who won't play along. It is now some kind of a crime for a moral person to simply state their beliefs regarding a matter of public policy.

I regard this whole scenario as being offensive but on principle , gays have the right to free speech and Peter Pace does not. How offended I am is not relevant. And I will be respectful or I will be pilloried.

I applaud this Yankee dog for having the spine to speak his mind. Let's see if gay commandos can knock him off the top military post in America.
 
  by: Rip Snorter   03/14/2007 09:14 PM     
  @rip  
 
And just why should gay people have any concern that people like you are offended? What right do you think you have to this offense (morally, not legally)? Do you think you some perceived right to be unfettered by the existence of your gay countrymen and their problems is somehow just as important as their struggle to end these problems and better their lives?

Your comparison of a hateful term used against a group of people for harmlessly being who they are to a more or less accurate (if overused) term to condemn the harmfully prejudicial beliefs of their opposition is really absurd. It reminds me of the schoolyard bully who beats up on others for years, then once someone hits him back, he goes yelling for a teacher about how he's been victimized. Let's stop pretending outrage over such opinions is something new, brought about by the Elder Protocols of San Francisco. If Pace were to have said that he didn't want black soldiers because they're lazy, he'd meet with even more outrage (also simply a personal opinion). Gays are less and less a group easily slandered or marginalized, so deal with it - the old racists did.

Pace is more than entitled to his opinion, but he speaks as a general who is supposed to be leading tens of thousands of gay soldiers amidst his ranks. While I don't think he should apologize for speaking his opinion, he may want to do so for the demoralizing effect speaking it may have had on those troops. A good general rallies his men, he doesn't alienate them. When asked about the "Don't ask, don't tell policy," he should have said, "No comment" and held his opinion until he was retired general Peter Pace.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/14/2007 10:15 PM     
  Let them fight!  
 
Why is it only the "best" citizens can serve? I say send the hoodlum gang bangers and crazies to war. If they get killed, it beats wasting tax payers money to keep them in prison. If they fight, let it count towards their prison sentence. mentally and physically handicapped people should be allowed to serve as well. I am blind in one eye, but I can see very well out of the other, and I have strong technical skills, but I was denied registration in the armed services.
 
  by: BikerDude   03/15/2007 06:38 AM     
  @ BikerDude  
 
Give gang-bangers fully automatic weapons, hand-grenades, yadda yadda, and expect them to take orders?

Becasue they would all of a sudden be soldiers, is far from being disciplined to the point of doing what they are told. Kinda the very thing that made them what they are - not following the rules of society.

Basic training can only train the willing.

As for handicaps .... it's because being a soldier is all-emcompassing, it's not like a job scenario that if you have one arm, you're put on a machine that requires only one hand.

Military, however, one has to be fully capable of jumping from behind the grill cooking chow, and into an APC with full combat gear because it is needed - without having to look thru some kind of "handicap / no combat list".
 
  by: Discarded Vet   03/15/2007 08:00 PM     
  @MoC  
 
Your response is EXACTLY what rip is talking about.

Pace has probably done more for the American people than any of us ever will, i think he deserves the right to speak his mind, no matter the subject. You telling him he cant until he is retired is more of the PC bullshit that rip is talking about.
 
  by: Classy   03/15/2007 08:18 PM     
  @classy  
 
Give the political-correctness talking point a rest, it's just ridiculous. If I were to espouse a belief that Jews are greedy, I wouldn't expect my employer to keep me around long once my Jewish coworkers got wind of it. That's not out of "PC bullsh*t," but because my words have seriously compromised my ability to to my job in their workplace. Free speech means you can speak your mind, not that you're free from the consequences of it. Can you answer any of my points without wheeling out more general rhetoric?

And just where IS the usual outrage from the Right about demoralizing the troops? It's quick to follow whenever criticism even falls on a government distant from the troops, but this was directed at a specific set of troops. It sure makes such concerns, and supposed diatribes against limiting the free expression of opinion, seem pretty hollow. It's almost as if they care about the military, not the troops, and the expression of their opinions and not all opinions.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/15/2007 08:46 PM     
  @rip snorter  
 
"applause...
Gays don't care much about how offensisve their little revolution is to the majority of Canadians."

as a canadian i call you on your bullshit...

"Anyone who disagrees with the gay political agenda is labled as 'homophobic'. That term is intended to be a tarbrush and is just as demeaning and presumptious as any slander anywhere. It is every bit as offensive as the term 'f*ggot' and for all the same reasons."

anyone that disagrees gays shouldn't have equal rights is by definition homophobic.

check a dictionary, you'll clearly see the definition.

-unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

-1 Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
-2 Behavior based on such a feeling.

prejudiced against homosexual people

"Gays are not expected to feel shame but they want to promote shame for anyone who won't play along."

should a straight person be expected to have shame for being straight, if not why should/would a gay person.

"It is now some kind of a crime for a moral person to simply state their beliefs regarding a matter of public policy."

so gay people aren't moral people, and are in so staight people are "better" (morally)... this type of unenlightened ignorance should be left in the churches and the bible where they came from.


"I regard this whole scenario as being offensive but on principle , gays have the right to free speech and Peter Pace does not. How offended I am is not relevant. And I will be respectful or I will be pilloried."

peter pace has a responsibility to those he commands, basic respect is part of that. also rights including freespeech are not absolute, IE, slader and lible.

and while we're on the subject of things being offensive, ignorance is offensive to me.

" applaud this Yankee dog for having the spine to speak his mind. Let's see if gay commandos can knock him off the top military post in America."

having the spine to speak their mind... how much spine does it really take to disparage a group of people over your ignorance.

disallowing gays from the military is absolutlely homophobic, and born of ignorance/contempt.

if some gay guys what to be shipped off as tools to die for the rich all the power to them. i support gay soldiers as much as i support straight soldiers... close to not-at-all, not at all in current conflicts.

furthermore anyone that has killed a person with intent, or lead to such has no room to talk about morals. mmm what worse sex or murder... using logic one would find murder to be the more immoral of the two, but religion and logic rarely have the same outcome.

banning gays from the military would be like banning non-whites from the military.
 
  by: HAVOC666     03/15/2007 09:03 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com