Glad to see that the US has all economic issues under control and has finally gotten around to legislating morality!

We should start applying the "moral" teachings of Gen. Pace's "upbringing" to all military service members. Between unmarried service members who have had sex and married ones who have engaged in anything other than the missionary position, there'll be only a handful of virgins left in Iraq.

It's one way to bring the troops home...

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


If it's three or more, it's okay with him. I'm trying to figure out what's the homosexual act with less than two people.

He's mot advocating masturbation, is he?

not

Vice President raises immoral daughter?
The horror.
Good thing he was too chickenshit to serve, or he'd be an embarrassment to the military.
Of course, he's already an embarrassment to those who love America.

Thread headline the other day is true. It's ok if you are a criminal. Join up today! No way, not if you're gay. Is this guy TRYING to retire early?

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

No adultery?? That rules out the Republican presidential candidates.

This is a recent development. There have never been homosexuals in the military up until today...RIGHT! Sounds to me like the "Chief of Staff" knows a bit more than he'd like to admit.

This "Marine" General sounds as if he'd be more comfortable leading bible study at the Air Force Academy.

What about ball-gags?

-Ambassador Refael

"and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said."

Like starting a pre-emptive war based on trumped, cherry picked intelligence?

General Pace was also quick to point out that raping and murdering 14 year old Iraqi girls is copacetic as long as you don't get caught.

"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."

This alone should be grounds to remove DADT.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want"

Total lie, easily based on the military eliminating crucial intelligence potential. Unless, they didn't want people who can translate Arabic.. possibly because very, very organized "insurgents" use it? To keep blackity-black on the down low, it would be prudent to pose, operate and appear as Arabs.. Golly, I wonder if that's ever been considered? What about interrogations? It would hinder any investigation if the language isn't understood. SO, who were the MI used in Abu Gharib? Another secret? Regular military, or were they from a darker, blackity branch? One that doesn't need useful discrimination policy to keep noses out..

It might prove interesting to interview Abu Ghraib torture victims and find how and when Arabic was used, if at all.

Oh Cmon Now !

Sodomy is cool !!

Dont be such a square!

It might prove interesting to interview Abu Ghraib torture victims and find how and when Arabic was used, if at all.

There were references in the Taguba report to "third party nationals" taking part in the interrogation and torture of Abu Ghraib prisoners. Gen Karpinski said that Israelis were there.

But I forgot, Charles Graner and Lynddie England came up with the whole scheme all by their little ol' selves.

So, we have a General who says "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." Then, we ridicule and belittle him.

Then, we have immature and reckless bloggers that say things such as "Sodomy is cool," and "he'd be more comfortable leading bible study," and who call him a "homophobe" without presenting any evidence.

Where does the real problem lie? What happened to our democratic ideals? What about tolerance? How can we treat someone who appears to possess moral character and fortitude like this, yet lift up and magnify one of the very behaviors that has brought the wrath of the Muslim world upon is?

We should be ashamed of our behavior, not the General.

PAPASTEFANO - Welcome to the site where on your "first day here" you've spotted the "immature and reckless" bloggers who make jokes about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

You're in for a bumpy ride, brother Papa.

And regarding the General's remarks, I quote you: "What about tolerance?" Indeed.

"How can we treat someone who appears to possess moral character and fortitude like this" - Maybe somebody in the armed forces who happens to be gay, and there are thousands of them.

Gemeral Pace should be reprimanded, but of course he won't be. Does he dismiss the value of all the UK troops in Iraq because they no longer ban gay soldiers?

Does he know that Afghan warlords have little boys to fuck?

He might know something about fighting, but he has a very narrow view of humanity. Sounds like he gets off on inquiring into adultery among soldiers, too.

No.

If I want moral leadership, I'll look to my pastor. If I want military leadership, if I want military preparedness, I'll look to CJCS.

The Marines have always been the butchest fighting force in the armed forces, except for a couple of seriously flaming sailors!

I wonder if burning you frat boy brothers on the buttocks with a red hot coathanger is okay? And what about Knutie....

So, we have a General who says "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." Then, we ridicule and belittle him.

I missed the part where he proves that homosexuality is immoral. Can you clarify? Do your religious beliefs help determine General Paces' capabilities?

Then, we have immature and reckless bloggers that say things such as "Sodomy is cool," and "he'd be more comfortable leading bible study," and who call him a "homophobe" without presenting any evidence.

Sodomy is cool. And I definitely would imagine that people who are afraid of sex with homosexuals might find more comfort in bible study. It's how bigots hide in public.

Where does the real problem lie? What happened to our democratic ideals? What about tolerance? How can we treat someone who appears to possess moral character and fortitude like this, yet lift up and magnify one of the very behaviors that has brought the wrath of the Muslim world upon is?
We should be ashamed of our behavior, not the General.
Posted by PapaStefano at 2007-03-13 08:05 AM

So, the removal of Arabic translators has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence decisions, just morality? Pace "appears to possess" a bad hair day 365.242199 days out of the year.

It's our foreign policy that interferes with the internal affairs of their countries and culture that has "brought the wrath of [nutcase fundamentalists in] the Muslim world upon us".

Bush's policies, such as the pre-emptive Iraq invasion, using the military as his tool have exacerbated this problem out of all proportion.

There will always be fundamentalist religious nutcases. Our goal should be to curb their influence, at home and abroad. At home Bush has done the opposite with his cynical manipulation of homophobia for political purposes. These and his other policies have become so repugnant to moderates at home that he has curbed fundamentalist influence here in spite of himself.

As for abroad, some people might argue that the homoerotic nature of many of the Abu Ghraib abuses was, to some extent, an expression of the always present but usually latent homophobia let off its leash by Bush's political use of homophobia at home. This may be far-fetched but, whatever the reason for the nature of the Abu Ghraib abuse, the graphic photos of it certainly helped the nutcase fundamentalist Muslim cause with more moderate Muslims.

Thank you for your cordial welcome, SitDown. I found this site by accident, but it seems a good site. I hope that I can stay awhile.

I simply cannot understand what you're trying to say in paragraph 4 of your response. There's something about your sentence structure that I'm just not working out.

There is a big difference between tolerating a behavior and condoning it. It seems that the General tolerates it, which is what he should do. Why should he condone it, though?

Obviously, my small sampling of this site's inhabitants tolerates homosexual behavior and homosexual individuals, as do I. Some of us condone it, which is allowed in our tolerant society. Why are we not also tolerating the General's choice to NOT condone what he considers immoral behavior?

Also, I did not see any indication that he dismisses the value of our homosexual troops or those of our allies. Neither do I see anything to indicate that he condones homosexual pedophilia practiced by Afghan warlords.

Also, how can you support your statement that he "gets off on inquiring into adultery among soldiers." I don't see that in the news story. If anything, his support of DADT suggests that he does not.

Finally, I'm disappointed that neither you or anyone else at this point have actually answered the questions I pose. Where is our/YOUR tolerance?

P.S. - To TedBaxter, I wouldn't look to the military for moral leadership. However, I DO look to it for moral behavior and standards. Wasn't that exactly what the outcry against Abu Ghraib was about? In this way we should applaud the General.

If General Pace has a moral objection to gays in the military he should resign and find another job, perhaps with a religious denomination .....

No wonder the military is in such a state these days....You would have thought Pace would have had brains enough to know that this statement would bring his boss, Dubya Dubya Bush, many political problems...

In the military adultery is grounds for firing....

I'll respond one more time, since I've had another couple of reasoned responses.

Obviously, I disagree with RedLightRobot about the morality or lack thereof about homosexuality. However, it is not intolerant to call a behavior immoral. It is, however, not condoning it. It would simply be silly to expect the General to say that he doesn't believe that a behavior should be condoned without giving his justification. His position can also be justified, perhaps, with health, economic, or societal preservation reasons.

It is completely unjustified, however, to accuse someone of bigotry, which is a "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" because they do not condone something. Such an accusation is only justified if the person is stubbornly intolerant, which is not the case here. Even a fear of sex with homosexuals may be justifiable, and thus not bigotry, as you suggest.

The removed Arabic translators were a small minority of the population affected, and I presume it was because they violated a standing directive, put in place during the Clinton administration - DADT. Would you suggest giving them preferential treatment?

As for BlueInBushLand, I mostly agree with you. Our foreign policy has been, shall we say, found wanting. However, the Muslim community, into which I have some understanding, considers the export of our popular culture, including homosexuality, to be unacceptable interference. The "nut cases" you refer to desired a war with the West - something to rally the Muslim world behind. If 9/11 hadn't done it, there would have be other attempts to provoke the West, because they already consider us to be at war, for the reasons I just stated.

Now, I'm off to a meeting. Please do not interpret my silence for a few hours to be complicity or defeat.

Methinka PAPASTEFANO doest protest too much....

Please NB that this is a site subtitled RED MEAT FOR YELLOW DOGS..

why are liberals so obsessed with homos? ARE YOU ALL GAY??

""We should be ashamed of our behavior, not the General.""

Tell you what Papa, shame is not an emotion that I think any homosexual should feel about their sexual orientation. You can defend this general all you want but he has insulted thousands of men and women who daily put their lives on the line in Iraq. He has insulted the families of fallen soldiers who happened to be homosexual.
He ought to be replaced with someone who can respect all of our soldiers and not insert his backward concepts of morality.
As far as the radical Muslim's views on homosexuality and it being seen as a cause for Jihadist terrorism....simply ridiculous. The causes are many but that is defintely not a major one of them. We are all "infidels" and our sexual orientation has not effect on that so we would be the Jihadist's enemy whether homosexuality was tolerated or not.
Gen. Pace's comments are ignorant and hateful. He has no business commanding troops who he deems immoral just because they happened to be born homosexual. Their blood runs just as red as any others, their courage is just as valuable.
I have also read that if all homosexuals were to be removed from our military, many hi-tech units, medical ones especially, could not even function.
Gen. Pace is a nit wit and should immediately be retired.

HEY- why are Connservatives obsessed with Abortion? Are you all pregnant women?

there is no gay gene, you chose to be gay

HEY, I don't know who you are at this point, but I can tell you won't be here for long...

Actually, Hey, there's a significant (and growing) body of evidence demonstrating a strong genetic connection to homosexuality.

To be succinct, I can present a lot more evidence in favor of a genetic link than you can present proving choice.

SCAREY-

So if I disagree with the liberal viewpoint and disagree with sodomy you will kick me off your site?? now how is that fair debate??

Joint Chiefs Chair: Homosexuality is Immoral

As I understand it, he was asked for his personal opinion by a reporter and he gave his personal opinion.

And as we know from many Democrats (and now promised by Rudy Giuliani) personal views on various issues do not preclude a public servant from supporting and implementing laws and policies which are contrary to their personal beliefs..

How can a guy sticking his dick into another guys ass be immoral?

I'm not a regular blogger, nor debater in this sort of venue, and I simply don't get the 'red meat for yellow dogs' play on words. Perhaps you can explain?

Danni, I never suggested that the homosexuals should be ashamed of being homosexual. I suggested that we should be ashamed of being intolerant. I hope that you aren't suggesting that hurting someone's feelings by not condoning their behavior is more important than tolerating (though not necessarily condoning) the person that says something hurtful. If you are, I'm afraid that you have a very intolerant view of tolerance.

BTW, I did not state that homosexuality is the main driver that Muslims condemn us and that radical Muslims consider us in a state of war according to the Qur'an. Actually, it's our many, many, violations of Sharia law. Open sexuality of all varieties are one problem. So is our support of Israel, and the list could go on.

You say his statements were ignorant I can accept that you believe that is is uninformed or unaware of some moral aspects of homosexual behavior. You say they were hateful. I can accept that you (and others) find them distasteful. BUT, are these reasons to call for his resignation? You don't condone his statements, obviously, but why do you go so far as not tolerating his freedom to express them.

And again, I see the suggestion that the General does not value homosexual individuals. I simply don't see how you support this from the news article.

Now for hypothetical questions. Answer if you can. If you believe that theft is immoral, does that make you unfit to command a thief? If you believe that lying is wrong, does that make you unfit to be in a position of authority over the liar?

General Pace was stating his opinion. As much as I disagree with that opinion, he has a right to it, and he has a right to state it.

He was not making a statement as a military official, but as a person.

True, his statement was an insult to the gay soldiers within the US military and to their families. I think he should have thought out his response better, but I will not call to censor him. He has as much freedom of speech as I do.

Between unmarried service members who have had sex and married ones who have engaged in anything other than the missionary position,

Posted by BobSF_94117 at 2007-03-12 11:20 PM | Reply

Thanks Bob, for distilling the entire philosophy of the Left into a single (awkward) sentence. If anybody behaves in a certain way, then it can't be immoral?

Let me paraphrase the Left:

Some people steal money; some people murder babies; some people have sex with animals; some people pimp their daughters. Who are we to judge?

General Pace was stating his opinion. As much as I disagree with that opinion, he has a right to it, and he has a right to state it.

Posted by RevDarko at 2007-03-13 10:28 AM | Reply

Rev,
What General Pace was stating is the offical policy of the U.S. military, and his interpretation and application of that policy. His personal opinion is that he agrees with official policy.

The Joint Chiefs poses an interesting question - do we bar people from military service based on morality? I'd say the farthest we need to go is keeping those flat affect, sociopathic types out of the military. If we are going to keep gay people out because of immorality, are we also going to keep adulterers and people who have heterosexual, premarital sex from serving? Because of the lack of consistency here, I have to assume that the morality policy is something that gets dusted off when convenient and swept under the carpet otherwise.

When challenged on their inconsistencies, expect a backlash of personal insults and deflections.

Posted by OohRah at 2007-03-13 09:12 AM | Reply

Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict!

""BUT, are these reasons to call for his resignation?""

Perhaps we should ask the parents of a fallen homosexual soldier that question.
Ignorant bigots on this site, not including you because your posts do not seem hateful, should be confronted with those parents and forced to defend their hateful remarks. Some of the posters here ought to join up with Fred Phelps and his Godhatesfags.com, they sure seem to share his views. Nothing like demonstrating at dead soldier's funerals to display your appreciation of the sacrifice of men and women who fight our wars.
Point is, Gen. Pace is in a position of authority, were my own boss to make the same statement I would quit my job and tell him where to put his stupid bigoted ideas.

If we are going to keep gay people out because of immorality, are we also going to keep adulterers and people who have heterosexual, premarital sex from serving? Because of the lack of consistency here,

Posted by Pleasantville at 2007-03-13 10:36 AM | Reply

It is not inconsistent. Military members are prosecuted regularly for adultery. When I was in Air Force Public Affairs our base newspaper published all of the disciplinary actions, and adultery was No. 3 (bounced checkes and DUI were above it).

You don't seem to understand that the military lives under a different code of law, more stringent than civilian law.

What General Pace was stating is the offical policy of the U.S. military, and his interpretation and application of that policy. His personal opinion is that he agrees with official policy.

As I said, it is his personal opinion. The DADT policy is policy at the moment. General Pace believes this is the best policy. His opinion. He has the right to state it.

He states that he believes homosexuality is immoral. His opinion. He has the right to state it.

He did NOT state that it is the millitary's judgement that homosexuality is immoral. Therefore, I will not call for his censure.

""He states that he believes homosexuality is immoral.""

He states that soldiers risking their lives, losing their lives for America are immoral. He needs to go. How can we expect our soldiers to fight and die under the command of someone who has such a narrow mind that he considers them immoral simply because they were BORN gay.
If we had a general say Christians are immoral I would expect that most of us here would demand his resignation, it would still just be his opinion but somehow I think the same folks saying that here would view it quite differently.
I think that it comes down to "whose ox is being gored." Saying it is just his opinion on one subject but reacting angrily if he said the same thing about another group is very hypocritical.

Vernon,

Military members are prosecuted regularly for adultery. When I was in Air Force Public Affairs our base newspaper published all of the disciplinary actions, and adultery was No. 3 (bounced checkes and DUI were above it).

Interesting. Hey, thanks for the info.

It is not inconsistent.

You only eliminated part of my argument, though. There's that bit about premarital sex. That's immoral, at least according to the Christian teachings that guide morality in this country.

According to some on this thread, heterosexual oral and anal sex between married partners should also be punished and is immoral since that also is included in the definition of "sodomy".

Danni,

I vehemently disagree with the general's assertion, however, I believe he has the right to express his opinion.

As they say, freedom of speech is not just for popular speech.

he has the right to say what he wants to say--the people most offended are the same ones who would have cheered him if had trashed bush or spoke defeatism about iraq-freedom of speech is exactly that sayin what you feelsexually what you do is your business -but don't mean i want to hear bout or approve it
jasman

You only eliminated part of my argument, though. There's that bit about premarital sex. That's immoral, at least according to the Christian teachings that guide morality in this country.

Posted by Pleasantville at 2007-03-13 10:49 AM | Reply

Fornication is also against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but how do you prosecute for it? How do you obtain evidence if it is consenting adults? I do remember several investigations, but there was not enough evidence to form a case.

I do remember a few times when a woman came forward and said it was not consensual, and the airman was prosecuted for rape.

Vernon,

Fornication is also against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but how do you prosecute for it?

I can see how that would be an uphill battle, and frankly I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for it.

The military does, in the interest of moral consistency, have the option of kicking soldiers who do this out. That's what happens to the gay ones.

I think what's really going on here is lip service to the notion of morality. Examining a previous post you made:

When I was in Air Force Public Affairs our base newspaper published all of the disciplinary actions, and adultery was No. 3 (bounced checkes and DUI were above it).

Bounced checks > breaking one of the ten commandments? The military is being very inconsistent in its application of morals. In fact, it's so inconsistent that I'll have to call it "ethics" from now on. Clearly, their ethical compass isn't pointing at divine mandate. And honestly, that's fine with me. It would be nice if the people in charge would be honest with how they're running the operation, though.

because they were BORN gay -danni

I thought you said that you chose to be gay a couple of days ago...

I feel that gay people are wacked plain and simple.. This is because I am not gay.. I feel that it is wrong and that the openess the gay public demands without being pointed at, bashed, harrased, put down, laughed at, ect is going to fuck this country up..

And I want the rainbow back also..

"When I was in Air Force Public Affairs our base newspaper published all of the disciplinary actions, and adultery was No. 3 (bounced checkes and DUI were above it)."

I think what was meant by the above was that adultery was No. 3 in frequency of occurence/violations, not that it was 3rd in priority (i.e. the most frequent code/law breaking was bad checks, followed in order by DUI and adultery).

My only question for Gen. Pace is.... what possible good could come from these comments at this time?? Is he ramping up for a ultra-conservative Presidential bid? At a time when so many of our troops are risking their lives every day... does he really think that calling the gay ones lives immoral is morale-boosting?
Is this supposed to make the homophobic non-gay servicemen feel better, like saying "We know we have to let the queers in as long as they keep their traps shut, but I want to let you know I hate'em as much as you do"?

I hope there is a God, and for one reason. I can't wait to see these close-minded biggots get their come-uppance before the man.... any right thinking christian knows Jesus wouldn't condemn homosexuals.

If I'm wrong about J-man, then I am sure I'll have a better time in hell than in heaven... the company will be better, thats for sure.

I find it funny that a man whose job description IS the very definition of immoral, would claim that someones lifestyle to be immoral.
Mr. Pace, I might suggest that when you are finished with the details of the mass murder of innocents that you are currently engaged in, that you might do 1 more- yourself.
That will be the most "moral" act that you could engage in.
Please.

I think what was meant by the above was that adultery was No. 3 in frequency of occurence/violations, not that it was 3rd in priority

Hmm ... very likely, ok

I feel that it is wrong and that the openess the gay public demands without being pointed at, bashed, harrased, put down, laughed at, ect is going to fuck this country up..-Lidco

THIS is going to fuck this country up?

Lidco sounds like Rev Fred Phelps.

And nobody "took away" "your" rainbow.

Using the word "morality" doesn't change the fact one bit that the general is just another ignorant bigot. I heard his comments on the radio this morning and he sounded just like so many trailer park trash assholes I have heard so many times before. It is just one more example of Talbaptist mentality being in control of what we pretend is a free country. Its free as long as you agree with everything the most ignorant and narrow minded segments of our society say. One more good reason to replace Republicans with Democrats who aren't perfect but at least aren't dominated by religious fanatics. Is it any wonder that Sharia law was allowed to be incorporated into the new "free" Iraq, so that women's lives will be worse than they were under Saddam.

I'm shifting gears a little here, since I see many voices now speaking of tolerance in an even-handed way. I'm not an expert on all things religious, or on Christianity or Islam, but I'm well-read and well-acquainted, and these are issues that I can be passionate about. With that said...

I see several comments now about Christian tolerance - how should professing Christians treat and even view homosexuals , or ANYONE that they consider to be living in sin. This question seems to sum up what I'm reading.

First, let's look at Jesus. He should be the Christian example, right?

Quoting Jesus from John 8:2-11 in the Bible:

At dawn He (Jesus) appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap in order to have a basis to accuse Him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with His finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one sir", she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

This is the example that Christians should follow, if they are to be truly following their faith. Listen up and don't be a hypocrite, Christians! Like Ghandi said, "I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Now, for comparison, I just have to draw in one more example. You see, Muhammad was put in the same position:

Quote Muhammad from MUHAMMAD from the Hadith of Abu Dawud, #4428:

"Buraidah said: "A woman of Ghamid came to the Prophet and said: "I have committed fornication", He said: "Go back". She returned and on the next day she came to him again, and said: "Perhaps you want to send me back as you did to Maiz b. Malik. I swear by Allah, I am pregnant." He said to her: "Go back". She then returned and came to him the next day. He said to her: "Go back until you give birth to the child." She then returned. When she gave birth to the child she brought the child to him, and said: "Here it is! I have given birth to it." He said: "Go back, and suckle him until you wean him." When she had weaned him, she brought him to him with something in his hand which he was eating. The boy was then given to a certain man of the Muslims and he (the prophet) commanded regarding her. So a pit was dug for her, and he gave orders about her and she was stoned to death. Khalid was one of those who were throwing stones at her. He threw a stone at her. When a drop of blood fell on his cheek, he abused her. The prophet said to him: "Gently, Khalid. By Him in Whose hand my soul is, she has repented to such an extent that if one who wrongfully takes an extra tax were to repent to a like extent, he would be forgiven". Then giving command regarding her, prayed over her and she was buried.""

Which would you rather follow?

Is it any wonder that Sharia law was allowed to be incorporated into the new "free" Iraq, so that women's lives will be worse than they were under Saddam. -danni


In terms of religious obligations, such as the daily prayers, payment of Zakat, observance of the Ramadan fast and pilgrimage, women are treated no differently from men. There are, however, some exceptions made in the case of prayers and fasting. Women are not obliged to fast during menstruation, pregnancy, for forty days after childbirth or while nursing if there could be any threat to her health or her baby's.

Much has been said about the slaves and Islam, it is pertinent to know that Islam has prescribed five ways to free slaves, has severely chastised those who enslave free persons and has thus regulated the slave trade. The source of slaves was restricted to war in preference to killing whole tribes, en masse, as was the tradition at the time. Islam in fact limited combat operations to combatants and forbade its followers from attacking men, women, children, the elderly, clergy, artisans and other workers not engaged in war. The Qur'an stresses upon 'freeing the slave' and there is not a single verse in the Qur'an that encourages the taking of slaves.

Islam has no clergy, but women may become religious scholars. In practice, it is much more common for men to be scholars than women. Early Muslim scholars such as Abu-Hanifa and Al-Tabary held that there is nothing wrong with women holding a post as responsible as that of judge. Many interpretations of Islamic law hold that women may not have prominent jobs, and thus are forbidden from working in the government. This has been a mainstream view in many Muslim nations in the last century, despite the example of Muhammad's wife Aisha, who both took part in politics and was a major authority on hadith. Islam does not prohibit women from working, as it says "Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."[9] Married women may seek employment although it is often thought in patriarchal societies that the woman's role as a wife and mother should have first priority.

Islam unequivocally allows both single and married women to own property in their own right. Islam restored to women the right to inherit property, in contrast with some cultures where women themselves are considered chattels that can be inherited. A woman's share of inheritance is completely hers and no one, including her father or husband, can make any claim on it. However rich a woman may be, her male relatives in order of closeness are required to financially support her. It is her prerogative to forgive the male relatives their obligations of support.

continued

According to Islamic Law, adult women cannot be forced to marry anyone without their consent. Besides all other provisions for her protection at the time of marriage, it was specifically decreed that a woman has the full right to her Mahr, a marriage gift, which is presented to her by her husband and is included in the nuptial contract. Like the man, however, the woman can divorce her husband without resorting to the courts, if the nuptial contract allows that. A Muslim may not marry or remain married to an unbeliever of either sex (2:221, 60:10). A Muslim man may marry a woman of the People of the Book (5:5); traditionally, however, Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam.

In theory, Sunni Islamic law allows husbands to divorce their wives if there is a justifiable reason, by clearly saying talaq ("I divorce you"). A divorced couple cannot remarry if they have been divorced three times, unless the woman has married and divorced another man in the interim. In 2003 a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal. [7] Such a divorce, known as the "triple talaq" is not allowed in most Muslim states. The divorced wife always keeps her dowry from when she was married, and is given child support and until the age of weaning, at which point the child may be returned to its father if it is deemed to be in its interests. The wife also receives spousal support as long as she remains single, and the sum of this is usually designated in the marriage contract, but can be varied by the courts according to need.

Self defense. Oil, economic slavery, theft of others property and resources without compensation agreeable to the owners, to impose capatalist law upon free men.
All immoral. That is a short list. Morality is a standard to judge the deliberate actions of one upon another, not of ones deliberate actions upon themselves.
Smoking pot is not immoral, denying a person whom smokes pot full inclusion into socety, is.
Being gay is not immoral, denying them their full inclusion to society, is.
Being drunk, is not immoral, driving while drunk, is.
Having sex with a differant woman every night is not immoral, doing so while "married" and in contract to another, is.
Profit is immoral, prosperity is not.
No soldier of any military can claim morality in their actions, unless you stand upon the ground of your own soveriegn soil, to defend from those whom would take it.
The only heroes in Iraq, are Iraqis. Everyone else is just a thug, looking for glory in all the wrong places.

So now all the fag-lovers get the opportunity to profess their allegiance to the homosexual agenda. How heart warming it is that you have been give another reason to spit out your typical dribble.

I don't believe that legislating morality is what is behind all of this. But, if I don't like broccoli, don't make me it!!!

Isn't it kind of weird that a man who has killed, or at least orders others to kill, and destroy lives, cities and countries has the appearance of a moral high ground?

Isn't there something wrong with this picture or is it me?

Ranger--you don't need to eat broccoli, but everyone else in the country can have it for dinner if they so choose. And those people shouldn't be shunned because of it.

You don't need to get a boyfriend--but others can get one if they so choose and shouldn't be shunned because of it.

When laws are discriminatory for religious reasons--you are legislating morality. This schmuck spouting off about this is stupidity at its best. Banning gays from military service for moral reasons? Considering they're more than willing to kill people or look the other way as soldiers bang any woman they can get their hands on makes me think morality has nothing to do with the decision.

Wow, interesting choices...

Self defense.
This is immoral? By what moral standard?

Oil, economic slavery, theft of others property and resources without compensation agreeable to the owners, to impose capatalist law upon free men.
All immoral. That is a short list. Morality is a standard to judge the deliberate actions of one upon another, not of ones deliberate actions upon themselves.
Honestly, I don't understand you, and without specific context for most of these, I'd say it's hard to make such a blanket statement.

Smoking pot is not immoral, denying a person whom smokes pot full inclusion into socety, is.
What if it is illegal? Should we still allow full inclusion into society?

Being gay is not immoral, denying them their full inclusion to society, is.
I agree, but what do you mean by full inclusion in society? If you mean equal opportunity, certainly. In the eyes of the law, absolutely. In practice, not so much - people aren't always that mature.

In such cases, it is wrong to treat them intolerantly. It is also wrong to demand that others condone, encourage, or reward the behavior.

Being drunk, is not immoral, driving while drunk, is.
What about the family that suffers due to the drinking, or the other negative personal and societal impacts?

Having sex with a differant woman every night is not immoral, doing so while "married" and in contract to another, is.
What about the women? They can never offer their virginity to their future husband because you took it. You can never offer it to your future wife because you gave it away. What about the child that results, or this spread of disease?

Profit is immoral, prosperity is not.
What is your definition of immoral profit?

No soldier of any military can claim morality in their actions, unless you stand upon the ground of your own soveriegn soil, to defend from those whom would take it.
The only heroes in Iraq, are Iraqis. Everyone else is just a thug, looking for glory in all the wrong places.
Too big an issue for me to bite off, sorry.

The general is correct. An unpopular position with the unregenerate, of course, but correct nonetheless.

Silly question, but since I'm here...

Is this a left-leaning, right-leaning, or what site? I still don't get the red meat yellow dog comment.

So now we know; it was Jeff Gannon and Matt Sanchez who spit-roasted Karl Rove. I love the smell of Santorum in the morning.. smells like victory!

Why would someone who is openly gay serve in the military?

"Why would someone who is openly gay serve in the military?"

Service to country.

Patriotism.

Opportunity.

Education.

Training.

Pretty much the reasons why most choose to serve their country by enlisting.

Hans

"Why would someone who is openly gay serve in the military?"

Why would someone who is openly hetero serve in the military?

The hetero has gay tendencies, wanting to shower with all those muscle men and all!

Pleasantville,

""Military members are prosecuted regularly for adultery. When I was in Air Force Public Affairs our base newspaper published all of the disciplinary actions, and adultery was No. 3 (bounced checkes and DUI were above it)."

Interesting. Hey, thanks for the info.

"It is not inconsistent."

You only eliminated part of my argument, though. There's that bit about premarital sex. That's immoral, at least according to the Christian teachings that guide morality in this country."

Fornication is sex between two consenting adults who are not married. This is only a moral offense, a sin, and not usually a crime in most states.

The military has regulations against fornication, because such activity is deemed to detrimental to morale. The rules are quite specific about relationships between officers and enlisted people, and between couples who are either officers or enlisted people where there is a large disparity between the ranks of the individuals involved. If a colonel is doinking a 2lt, the colonel may be in trouble. The same might hold for an e-9 boffing an e-3. The idea seems to be that one party or the other may to taking unfair advantage.

You're welcome.

So now all the fag-lovers get the opportunity to profess their allegiance to the homosexual agenda. How heart warming it is that you have been give another reason to spit out your typical dribble.
I don't believe that legislating morality is what is behind all of this. But, if I don't like broccoli, don't make me it!!!
Posted by ranger at 2007-03-13 03:50 PM

Oh, you mean the fight for equal rights? Yeah, that agenda is still on, silly bitch! This is America, after all, so expect that gays will be provided equal rights in every respect very soon. You still have ample time to prep your coming out party. I'll be sure to bring you a big head of broccoli, so you can marry it to the carrots and pearl onions also stuck up your ass.

I agree that DADT isn't just about morality, but more about keeping Arabic translators out of the intelligence loop to force reliance upon Israeli nationals. It's about delaying knowledge of who and what is occurring daily inside and surround the greenzone. It's also about keeping 32% of the military scared of homosexuality.

This guy needs to be sacked. He is unfit to lead.

No adultery?? That rules out the Republican presidential candidates.

They ruled themselves out when "other priorities" got in the way. That and a pimple on their ass.

Or being a coke head.

Pace, Gonzales, Rove, Libby...

Why do I get the feeling this Administration is coming apart at the seams?

Heh.

I can't believe this is an issue. Pace has the right to say anything he wants. That's the beauty of our country. People who are truely moral do not cast judgements on others. His comments only make his sound uneducated. Maybe a better topic would be the morality of this war.

Pace thinks people who are gay are too inherently immoral to learn how to kill properly?

Spud laffed anyway.

Be Well.

John47,

I have learned some things in this thread. Now I know that the military has strict guidelines on relationships, and I'm fine with that. I'm still unsure about the consistency in this morality enforcement. If you merely say that you're gay, you get booted out. If you actually engage in (straight) sexual misconduct, do you also get kicked out? Or is it a minor disciplinary action?

Why should he condone it, though?


Hey papa ... who the hell are YOU to deign to "condone" homosexual behavior? That is an assumption of superiority on your part, and is illustrative of the underlying problem we have in this adolescent country of ours.

If homosexual acts trouble you, either stop engaging in them, or stop thinking about them.

Why should he condone it, though?


Hey papa ... who the hell are YOU to deign to "condone" homosexual behavior? That is an assumption of superiority on your part, and is illustrative of the underlying problem we have in this adolescent country of ours.

If homosexual acts trouble you, either stop engaging in them, or stop thinking about them.

For all of you lefties, who "Loath" the military and take every advantage to bash it. Military Justice and moral conduct is set to a much higher standard for reasons which should be obvious, But That is something you cannot understand because you don't have standards, Only "what is in it for me" and "How can I force the rest of america to accept me no matter what i do" when I was in England I saw a 9 year E6 get 3 years in prison for not telling on Civilain employees at an NCO club for smoking Marijuana, of course the employees just got fired and then tried to sue, But because this guy was under an obligation to report any "Behavior inconsistent with good unit cohesion and miltary readiness" he was prosecuted. If we held the civilians to the same standard, the entire democratic party and half the population of the US would be in jail. That is why we have Generals Like Pace, he understands what it takes to make a good citizen, a good soldier and a person of character and integrity, so whine all you want,He is entitled to state his opinion and why it works.

"Military Justice and moral conduct is set to a much higher standard for reasons which should be obvious"

Just the opposite is true: dehumanizing a segment of society because of the way God created their sexual orientation is a lower standard of moral conduct.

Which should be obvious.

Homosexual acts have nothing to do with "morality", hillbilly, that's the point.

Homosexuality is also not inconsistent with unit cohesion. Sayin' it don't make it so.

""That is why we have Generals Like Pace, he understands what it takes to make a good citizen, a good soldier and a person of character and integrity, so whine all you want,He is entitled to state his opinion and why it works.""

Of course he does under this gay-hating administration, they probably put him up to this STUNT in the first place to draw attention away from the important matters of the day. However, under any sane administration a general that insulted thousands of troops, thousands of fallen troops and their families would be asked to resign. Perhaps folks like Jihad would like to go to Arlington and pick out the graves of the fallen gay soldiers and put some sort of marking to indicate immoral on their headstones. Perhaps soldiers who are outed should just be stoned to death just like those we fight, hey if it's good enough for the ignorant Muslims around the world then why not here too?

morality (m'-rl'-t, m-)

The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. also known as "good and evil"

A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

Virtuous conduct.
A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

So as you see, Your morality is in direct conflict with my morality, My standards are different and higher than yours. If you want to play the "skin flute" with another dude, go right ahead, Just don't expect me to accept it as a part of my morality, and don't expect the military to accept it as something they need to "adjust" to I only want the military to Kill people and blow things up, Not be some political "morality" lab for you lefty, crybabies

hey papastefano, you will quickly learn to ignore danni. she is great for commical relief but dont take her seriously. no one else can, she is a bitter angry women that is so full of hate she is incapable of rational thought and debate.

My standards are different and higher than yours

"Higher"? According to you? HA HA HA

You are a narrow-minded turd who should first learn the rules of punctuation and capitalization.

Your standards are different, indeed.

"I only want the military to Kill people and blow things up"

No, you also want the military to openly discriminate against one segment of society.

hey papastefano, you will quickly learn to ignore danni. she is great for commical relief but dont take her seriously. no one else can, she is a bitter angry women that is so full of hate she is incapable of rational thought and debate.
Posted by scooter28054 at 2007-03-14 12:33 PM

Wow, penis envy shows no sexual preference..

Hey papa ... who the hell are YOU to deign to "condone" homosexual behavior? That is an assumption of superiority on your part, and is illustrative of the underlying problem we have in this adolescent country of ours.

Condoning something can be at a personal choice and a societal choice. Who are we to demand that the General condone a behavior on a personal level? However, as a society, we've chosen, by and large, to condone homosexual behavior. This is reflected in the tolerance that our legal system shows to those who practice the behavior.

If homosexual acts trouble you, either stop engaging in them, or stop thinking about them.

They trouble me, but no more or less than any other thing that people do to violate God's will. It wasn't what troubled me here, though. What troubled me here was the intolerance.

Everyone, I think my choice of the word "condone" as I contrasted it was in error. I should have used the word "endorse." We demand tolerance. Can we demand endorsement from an individual? If we do, it violates the ideals of tolerance. Can we demand endorsement from society, if a significant segment of that society disagrees? Maybe. It's worth further debate, for sure.

They trouble me, but no more or less than any other thing that people do to violate God's will. It wasn't what troubled me here, though. What troubled me here was the intolerance.


Are we to tolerate intolerance, too?

I for one would find it offensive to be "tolerated" by others. Gays are doing themselves a huge disservice by allowing this term to be used. In a free society, we have to accept that others have the same rights we want for ourselves. Yes, just accept it and move along. Not the rights to the SAME BEHAVIOR as we might engage in, but the RIGHT itself. "Morality" is involved only to the extent that the behavior we engage in is not at the expense of others.

"God's will" has nothing to do with it in our legal system.

Whether or not you "endorse" or "condone" things makes absolutely no difference- unless you consider yourself in some way superior- which would make your concept of "morality" a joke.

"They trouble me, but no more or less than any other thing that people do to violate God's will."

Really? And you purport to know God's will? Let's look at a few things of which you may be unaware...

Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today

If you were to base your premise on the Levitical holiness code declaring homosexuality to be an abomination you would also have to accept that: "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Lev. 25:44-46) (among many other "codes" we now know are outdated)

The "sin of Soddom"? Here's what the prophet Ezekial had to say about that - "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." Ezekiel 16:48-49

Continued:

Want to fall back on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor:6-9?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant something like "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

Maybe the passage in Romans will be the one. Or not.

In this passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that person.

An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

So are you REALLY so sure you know God's will?

Know God's will??????

The bible was written by men and those same men wrote in the book that these words are the words of God.

Nice, how many other non yet unnon fictional books would one believe the other for saying it is the word of God.

It appears to few understand the actual intent of the Bible and take it literal when they want and throw out when it doesn't serve their purpose at the time.

hypocrits.

"Who are we to demand that the General condone a behavior on a personal level?"


He was speaking on behalf of our military. If he made these comments in a coffee shop, this wouldn't have been such a big deal.


I don't expect anyone to "condone" "accept" or "endorse" anything the feel is wrong. But with that freedom comes consequences. Because of their belief that gays are "immoral", i believe they're bigoted, narrowminded, ignorant schmucks.

I do, however, expect people to support legislation that ensures equal protection under the law and reject discriminatory legislation.

Now when people speak on behalf of our government---they would be well advised to stay away from religiously based morals that touch on hot topics(seeing as that there IS a separation between church and state). To me, i think they're just asking for trouble (or attention).

I'm all for lesbians in the military and totally against gay men in the military--

Lets face it most of the women in the military are lesbian, you have to be a sturdy woman to hump it (no pun intended)over the wall on Parris Island.

But gay men is a differant story. The tension that would be created by a gay man having a crush on another guy in his platoon is not good for anyone--besides the military is no place for social engineering

I'm all for lesbians in the military and totally against gay men in the military--


Does your teacher know you are posting during recess?

The guys a Christian of course he thinks its immoral--so what--he can have his opinion

Mark--

What about men who have a crush on a female in the military?

"The tension that would be created by a gay man having a crush on another guy in his platoon is not good for anyone"

Do heterosexual men and women have "crushes" that they don't act on? Your "point" is a bit murky, at best.

Mark, i have lots of opinions that i voice when i'm NOT representing my employer. When he is speaking FOR the government, he shouldn't speak about his personal political, religious, etc. opinions.

hey papastefano, you will quickly learn to ignore danni. she is great for commical relief but dont take her seriously. no one else can, she is a bitter angry women that is so full of hate she is incapable of rational thought and debate.

If I minded, I wouldn't have spoken up in the first place. Let Danni and I be an example of two people of differing world views that are able to discuss our differences and find common ground without all the hate and hate speech both sides here seem to love.

Danni has some valid points - there ARE a lot of Bigots involved in this debate. I am not one of them, and I hope I can prove that in time. I don't believe that the article presents enough evidence prove that the General is one. I hope that Danni isn't one - and she has the same opportunity as I do to prove it.

Parse the Scriptures as you will. The bottom line is the sheep will live according to the truth and the truth will judge the goats.

25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30I and My Father are one." John 10

"truth will judge the goats"

Looks like the fuckwits are loose again.