joint chiefs chair says homosexuality is immoral

12357…11

Comments

  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    The definition that you supplied said that that adultery meant sex outside of marriage - whether prior to or within.

    The chairmen used the word "adultery". Therefore, he is saying that lots and lots of people are immoral. So where is the adultery group that is calling for an apology.
    The definition she supplied was for fornication, and adultery is a type of fornication. A specific type. The definition she supplied did not say that adultery meant sex outside of marriage, whether prior to or within.

    The chairman said that people who cheat on their spouses and homosexuals were immoral. He said nothing about straight unmarried couples having sex.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    know1 wrote:
    The definition that you supplied said that that adultery meant sex outside of marriage - whether prior to or within.

    The chairmen used the word "adultery". Therefore, he is saying that lots and lots of people are immoral. So where is the adultery group that is calling for an apology.
    The problem with this argument is that the definition I provided was a definition for fornication which apparently does not include some of the details that definitions for adultery does. The definitions for adultery, as far as I could see, ALL necessitated there being a marriage that was being violated. ie: it was adultery, because someone in the sexual encounter was violating a current marriage. And trust me, I tried very hard to make RainDog "wrong". :D
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Can't we all just be gay and get along. Talking lisp is the new metrosexual.

    Accessorize!
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    RainDog wrote:
    The definition she supplied was for fornication, and adultery is a type of fornication. A specific type. The definition she supplied did not say that adultery meant sex outside of marriage, whether prior to or within.

    The chairman said that people who cheat on their spouses and homosexuals were immoral. He said nothing about straight unmarried couples having sex.


    Didn't he say homosexual ACTS were immoral?

    But, you're all nitpicking on semantics and avoiding the issue or point. There are plenty of definitions of adultery out there that consider pre-marital sex as adultery.

    Just to try and get you past that detail, what if the general had specifically said that pre-marital sex was immoral. Would that offend anyone who has done that?
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    angelica wrote:
    The problem with this argument is that the definition I provided was a definition for fornication which apparently does not include some of the details that definitions for adultery does. The definitions for adultery, as far as I could see, ALL necessitated there being a marriage that was being violated. ie: it was adultery, because someone in the sexual encounter was violating a current marriage. And trust me, I tried very hard to make RainDog "wrong". :D

    I've done a quick search. There are plenty of definitions that say sex without marriage is adultery.
    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.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    know1 wrote:
    I've done a quick search. There are plenty of definitions that say sex without marriage is adultery.
    Well then share them with us, please. I am looking to understand your interpretation and what it is based on. I'm not at all saying it is invalid.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    Didn't he say homosexual ACTS were immoral?
    All right. He said that people who cheat on their spouses (an act) are immoral, like people who have gay sex (also an act).
    know1 wrote:
    But, you're all nitpicking on semantics and avoiding the issue or point. There are plenty of definitions of adultery out there that consider pre-marital sex as adultery.

    Just to try and get you past that detail, what if the general had specifically said that pre-marital sex was immoral. Would that offend anyone who has done that?
    I'm not nitpicking on semantics. I'm just replying to your implication that the general was referring to all acts of sex outside of marriage. He wasn't. Most adulterers would consider their actions to be "immoral," hence why they hide it from their spouses. So they wouldn't demand an apology. Most homosexuals don't consider their actions to be immoral in and of themselves, so therefore are demanding an apology. The rest of us fornicators have been left out of the melee.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    angelica wrote:
    Well then share them with us, please. I am looking to understand your interpretation and what it is based on. I'm not at all saying it is invalid.

    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"
    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.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    know1 wrote:
    what if the general had specifically said that pre-marital sex was immoral. Would that offend anyone who has done that?


    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*




    * although someone will google that and produce a story about a fucking tribe in the amazon or something :rolleyes:
    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.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    know1 wrote:
    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"
    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. :)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    know1 wrote:
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    dunkman wrote:
    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.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    angelica wrote:
    And trust me, I tried very hard to make RainDog "wrong". :D
    Here's lookin' at you, ange. ;)
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    dunkman wrote:
    that can only be interpreted in one way to me.

    Maybe I'm more open-minded, then.
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    angelica wrote:
    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.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    RainDog wrote:
    Here's lookin' at you, ange. ;)
    Thanks. I'm trying to manage this being wrong stuff gracefully. :)

    Join the club, know1! :)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    RainDog rules!
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    angelica wrote:
    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.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    know1 wrote:
    Maybe I'm more open-minded, then.


    no.. just wrong :)
    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.

Categories