Gay sex immoral says US general

#51
#51
therealUT said:
I did not say it did. However, in a pragmatic sense it most definitely reflects on the difference in how adultery and homosexuality are handled in the military.
Click to expand...
the argument has always been that homosexuality impacts readiness, which cannot be compromised for anything. Adultery is just against the rules, but rarely impacts operations (hence your blather about impacting the unit).
 
#52
#52
"Women in combat" was also used as well. How many women are exposed to combat? How many have died? Shall we blame some failure on those women?
 
#53
#53
CSpindizzy said:
"Women in combat" was also used as well. How many women are exposed to combat? How many have died? Shall we blame some failure on those women?
Click to expand...
This is an absolutely stupid connection, but I'll oblige. Women have every right to give their lives for the country, but not to the extent that they make any field units less effective, for whatever reason. I'm all for them being there if they can meet the physical standards expected of a man. For those careers / functions that are not physical by nature, I'm all for women having every opportunity in those positions and dying for me. The argument that they can't be promoted without seeing combat is just silly and can't be borne out in any way.

Homosexuals in the military is a completely different debate.
 
#54
#54
Stupid connection? The same logic of disturbing the effectiveness of the military was used. Same with Blacks. The same logic was used whether you deny it or not. It is a different debate but using the same logic.
 
#55
#55
BigPapaVol said:
This is an absolutely stupid connection, but I'll oblige. Women have every right to give their lives for the country, but not to the extent that they make any field units less effective, for whatever reason. I'm all for them being there if they can meet the physical standards expected of a man. For those careers / functions that are not physical by nature, I'm all for women having every opportunity in those positions and dying for me. The argument that they can't be promoted without seeing combat is just silly and can't be borne out in any way.

Homosexuals in the military is a completely different debate.
Click to expand...
well put
 
#56
#56
BigPapaVol said:
This is an absolutely stupid connection, but I'll oblige. Women have every right to give their lives for the country, but not to the extent that they make any field units less effective, for whatever reason. I'm all for them being there if they can meet the physical standards expected of a man. For those careers / functions that are not physical by nature, I'm all for women having every opportunity in those positions and dying for me. The argument that they can't be promoted without seeing combat is just silly and can't be borne out in any way.

Homosexuals in the military is a completely different debate.
Click to expand...

To add one more item to this, why isn't your feeling actual policy? Why are there limited roles for women along with limited mixed training? Why are women not in Infantry MOS's?
 
#57
#57
CSpindizzy said:
To add one more item to this, why isn't your feeling actual policy? Why are there limited roles for women along with limited mixed training? Why are women not in Infantry MOS's?
Click to expand...
Women would be an operational nightmare for LIGHT infantry type units. Beyond that, they're probably fine, except in MOSs where considerable strength is a part of the issue. I'm not trying to denigrate women in the service and would like to see them given every opportunity to help our nation, but reality says there are some situations that just do not work.
 
#58
#58
CSpindizzy said:
Stupid connection? The same logic of disturbing the effectiveness of the military was used. Same with Blacks. The same logic was used whether you deny it or not. It is a different debate but using the same logic.
Click to expand...
But the effectiveness is impacted for completely different reasons. Homosexuals and blacks (in yesteryear), the argument goes, would negatively impact unit cohesiveness, which is paramount in combat because soldiers must rely upon and implicitly trust one another. The implied untruth is that soldiers in general are not educated enough to accept, much less trust, those different than themselves. Was proven wrong with the integration of the services and will eventually be proven wrong with gays.

Very different proposition than dealing with physiological differences in women and men (GI Jane notwithstanding) and the logistical implications for forward units.
 
#61
#61
She wore 40-60 pounds of armor, at least a 15 pound shield, and I am sure that the sword weighed a lot more than an M4.
 
#63
#63
therealUT said:
Did not Joan of Arc serve very well as an infantry soldier?
Click to expand...
sound policy decisions should not be based upon 60 sigma type people or events.

I also said that they should be held to the same standard as their counterparts. In that instance, I'm OK with it, but still don't like the unnecessary management and logistics headaches.
 
#64
#64
CSpindizzy said:
He used the word "immoral" which brings the discussion beyond UCMJ. He is basing his definition of immoral on his upbringing in Biblical matters. The same standard that equates homosexuality as immoral also ties thievery, slander, adultery, lying, etc.
Click to expand...
Don't forget eating pork. The bible strictly forbids the eating of pork. The good general needs to put out a memo forbidding all mess halls from serving pork from now on.

While we're at it, he also needs to say something about those 50/50 cotton/nylon BDUs. the mixing of materials in clothing is also forbidden by the bible.

Why in the world is our military condoning all this immorality?
 
#65
#65
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
Don't forget eating pork. The bible strictly forbids the eating of pork. The good general needs to put out a memo forbidding all mess halls from serving pork from now on.

While we're at it, he also needs to say something about those 50/50 cotton/nylon BDUs. the mixing of materials in clothing is also forbidden by the bible.

Why in the world is our military condoning all this immorality?
Click to expand...

Did the general mention the Bible?
 
#68
#68
allvol123 said:
You tell me, since you seem to know everything.
Click to expand...
The point is that you cannot make an argument that homosexuality is immoral without the biblical texts that prohibit it. There is no other reason why anyone should conclude that a personal act between two consenting adults, which causes harm to no one would be immoral.
 
#69
#69
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
]Don't forget eating pork. The bible strictly forbids the eating of pork[/B]. The good general needs to put out a memo forbidding all mess halls from serving pork from now on.

While we're at it, he also needs to say something about those 50/50 cotton/nylon BDUs. the mixing of materials in clothing is also forbidden by the bible.

Why in the world is our military condoning all this immorality?
Click to expand...

Actually that is from the Old Testament and has nothing to do with Gentiles. Those were Old Testament laws for the Jewish people to follow so that is very silly to try and say that applies to the topic. In those same texts there are many laws about food preperation and throwing away bowls that held raw meats and things of that nature. Again that was laws for the Jews to follow and not the Gentiles. BTW the Old Testament and New Testament talk about homosexuality being the same as me lusting after a woman.

Obviously you don't have to believe the Bible but it truely is insulting for someone to belittle it. You clearly have read some of the Bilbe but anyone who understands it knows the things you talked about are silly assumptions to make.
 
#70
#70
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
The point is that you cannot make an argument that homosexuality is immoral without the biblical texts that prohibit it. There is no other reason why anyone should conclude that a personal act between two consenting adults, which causes harm to no one would be immoral.
Click to expand...


So selling your body for drugs would be considered moral in your thinking.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top