Well maybe I'm wrong. Here was one I saw that could be interpreted two ways (from Wikipedia): Minnesota defines adultery as: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery"
that can only be interpreted in one way to me.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
but people who have pre-marital sex havent been a part of a shunned society made to feel worthless and dirty. Homosexuals have and so therefore the general's comments cause concern as he is subjecting his views upon an already battered and frowned upon homosexual community. The majority of people have pre-marital sex... but nobody in the last century has been subjected to prison for it*
That's not my question. Why is it so difficult to just answer what has been asked.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The "whether married or not" part refers to the OTHER person in the equation--other than the first person who IS married. Seriously dude, I was arguing for your side only because it looked promising at the beginning, until I realized I didn't have a leg to stand on.
You're right. I'm completely wrong. I have always defined adultery as sex outside of marriage. Apparently I've been wrong all this time.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Why voice an opinion now. Over 3,000 deaths and 50,000 wounded; another 21,000 for surge one and now, another 8,000 for surge two. Seems a little hypocrital to turn the Don't Care policy back to the the Don't ask, Don't tell policy at this point in the conflict.
[Pace] "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.
How clavier in picking and choosing that which is immoral. Based on this statement wouldn't the war in Iraq be considered immoral? If a policy is based on information that was knowingly altered which lead to a war, would that war and its deaths be immoral? None of that matters when you have a Commander-In-Chief who only listens to his dog.
[Pace] "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.
Go have that discussion with Cheney.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Thanks. I'm trying to manage this being wrong stuff gracefully.
Join the club, know1!
When I feel I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it.
I guess within my (incorrect) definition of adultery, I was trying to point out that these statements should be just as offensive to the majority of people as well as homosexuals. And if so, why is the focus on homosexuality?
It was a nice try based on an innacurate definition...
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
When I feel I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it.
I guess within my (incorrect) definition of adultery, I was trying to point out that these statements should be just as offensive to the majority of people as well as homosexuals. And if so, why is the focus on homosexuality?
It was a nice try based on an innacurate definition...
I hear you. For me, because I'm wrong so rarely ( :rolleyes: ), when I actually am wrong, I try to jump on the opportunity to make a big show of it to prove how humble I really am.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
as i read the post; i noticed the man said "i believe" which means he stated his opinion. is he not entitled to an opinion now?
He certainly is. If he was in civilian dress and not acting as a representative of the U.S. government when he made the remarks, I'd have to agree that this is all much ado about nothing. If he was in his uniform and speaking as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regarding military policy, that's another story.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
It was a nice try based on an innacurate definition...
Yes it was, and if he was referring to the general population the way you implied, he likely would have gotten a bunch of curious stares and a "what an outdated prude" response from a lot of people. I doubt he would have gotten any demands for an apology, though, as many people would have likely considered it as damning as calling someone immoral for eating meat on Fridays.
What he did was point out a specific act, adultery, that most if not all people consider to be immoral and compared that to acts of homosexuality. The implication is different, and is why people consider the remark offensive.
He certainly is. If he was in civilian dress and not acting as a representative of the U.S. government when he made the remarks, I'd have to agree that this is all much ado about nothing. If he was in his uniform and speaking as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regarding military policy, that's another story.
and when the president says God bless america do you feel he is representing you; as an american? should freedom of speech be limited to private parties only?
and when the president says God bless america do you feel he is representing you; as an american? should freedom of speech be limited to private parties only?
No, I have never for a single moment felt that this particular president represented me in any way, and the god stuff from the mouth of any president is annoying.
You have the freedom as a private citizen to speak your mind. Your employer has the right to place limits on what you say when you are representing them.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
as i read the post; i noticed the man said "i believe" which means he stated his opinion. is he not entitled to an opinion now?
Yes, however, he's in a position which decides the life and death of these soldiers, what supplies, support and what arena a unit commander gets. Should someone's straight son die because of his personal beliefs?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
No, I have never for a single moment felt that this particular president represented me in any way, and the god stuff from the mouth of any president is annoying.
You have the freedom as a private citizen to speak your mind. Your employer has the right to place limits on what you say when you are representing them.
i'm not aware of the government putting any limits on anyone regarding the expression of ones opinion. nor an employer. except of course to cover-up illegal activity.
Not sure I totally agree, but that's not my point. My point is that he called adulterers immoral. Shouldn't that offend us just as much as it offends homosexuals to call their acts immoral?
I guess that depends on whether the adulterer sees what they are doing as being "right", however, I'd be willing to bet that few adulterers, if any, would express outrage...I could just imagine..."who the hell is this guy? calling me immoral because I'm fucking somebody from work..."
I see you're trying to tie these too statements, adulterers and homosexuals, together...while others are trying to point out that they are separate....
either way, I still contend, who cares how this guy was raised, he spoke is mind, and it's our right to agree or disagree...
meanwhile....Gonzales accepts resignation of top aide...
I guess that depends on whether the adulterer sees what they are doing as being "right", however, I'd be willing to bet that few adulterers, if any, would express outrage...I could just imagine..."who the hell is this guy? calling me immoral because I'm fucking somebody from work..."
I see you're trying to tie these too statements, adulterers and homosexuals, together...while others are trying to point out that they are separate....
either way, I still contend, who cares how this guy was raised, he spoke is mind, and it's our right to agree or disagree...
meanwhile....Gonzales accepts resignation of top aide...
my point exactly. there's no law that says you have to like or dislike a gay person. get over it. people sure get offended easily nowadays.
i'm not aware of the government putting any limits on anyone regarding the expression of ones opinion. nor an employer. except of course to cover-up illegal activity.
You're not aware that members of an administration are expected to articulate the views of that administration when speaking in their official capacity?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
You're not aware that members of an administration are expected to articulate the views of that administration when speaking in their official capacity?
i'm aware that anyone can speak their opinion. whether it goes against current administration or not. it happens every day. simply add the word gay to anything and you get national coverage. unless the current administration has become pro-gay; it seems he was articulating the views of the current administration.
I finally read the article. It's clear that he regrets talking about his personal position when he should have focussed more on defense department policy. At the same time, I stand behind him speaking his personal opinion as a personal opinion, and having the right to hold it and to not have to apologize for his view. The solution seems to be in differentiating between the stance of the group he represents, and his personal view. I would not apologize for my view. I would apologize if my view offended people, without apologizing for my view itself.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
i'm aware that anyone can speak their opinion. whether it goes against current administration or not. it happens every day. simply add the word gay to anything and you get national coverage. unless the current administration has become pro-gay; it seems he was articulating the views of the current administration.
So if he's speaking in his capacity as a representative of the administration and the Pentagon, he's saying that the highest levels of our government consider a significant percentage of the population to be "immoral" because of something they very likely have no more control over than they have over their skin color. And people are having trouble figuring out why anyone would take offense to this?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Comments
that can only be interpreted in one way to me.
That's not my question. Why is it so difficult to just answer what has been asked.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Maybe I'm more open-minded, then.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You're right. I'm completely wrong. I have always defined adultery as sex outside of marriage. Apparently I've been wrong all this time.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Join the club, know1!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
[Pace] "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.
How clavier in picking and choosing that which is immoral. Based on this statement wouldn't the war in Iraq be considered immoral? If a policy is based on information that was knowingly altered which lead to a war, would that war and its deaths be immoral? None of that matters when you have a Commander-In-Chief who only listens to his dog.
[Pace] "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.
Go have that discussion with Cheney.
When I feel I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it.
I guess within my (incorrect) definition of adultery, I was trying to point out that these statements should be just as offensive to the majority of people as well as homosexuals. And if so, why is the focus on homosexuality?
It was a nice try based on an innacurate definition...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no.. just wrong
I hear you. For me, because I'm wrong so rarely ( :rolleyes: ), when I actually am wrong, I try to jump on the opportunity to make a big show of it to prove how humble I really am.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What he did was point out a specific act, adultery, that most if not all people consider to be immoral and compared that to acts of homosexuality. The implication is different, and is why people consider the remark offensive.
Now, I'm not saying I don't want you too. I'm just saying that there's no need.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Wait. Just to be clear; a "humble schtick" is a reference to your humility, and not a euphemism for .... .. something more, right?
and when the president says God bless america do you feel he is representing you; as an american? should freedom of speech be limited to private parties only?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You have the freedom as a private citizen to speak your mind. Your employer has the right to place limits on what you say when you are representing them.
If you see me getting high,
Knock me down......
Yeah, that's not really my style. Just trying to be a little self destructive.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, however, he's in a position which decides the life and death of these soldiers, what supplies, support and what arena a unit commander gets. Should someone's straight son die because of his personal beliefs?
i'm not aware of the government putting any limits on anyone regarding the expression of ones opinion. nor an employer. except of course to cover-up illegal activity.
I guess that depends on whether the adulterer sees what they are doing as being "right", however, I'd be willing to bet that few adulterers, if any, would express outrage...I could just imagine..."who the hell is this guy? calling me immoral because I'm fucking somebody from work..."
I see you're trying to tie these too statements, adulterers and homosexuals, together...while others are trying to point out that they are separate....
either way, I still contend, who cares how this guy was raised, he spoke is mind, and it's our right to agree or disagree...
meanwhile....Gonzales accepts resignation of top aide...
my point exactly. there's no law that says you have to like or dislike a gay person. get over it. people sure get offended easily nowadays.
i'm aware that anyone can speak their opinion. whether it goes against current administration or not. it happens every day. simply add the word gay to anything and you get national coverage. unless the current administration has become pro-gay; it seems he was articulating the views of the current administration.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!