joint chiefs chair says homosexuality is immoral

onelongsong

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?

angelica

know1 wrote:

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.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

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.

RainDog

know1 wrote:

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to the general population the way you implied, he likely would have gotten a bunch of curious stares and a "what an outdated prude" response from a lot of people.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.

RainDog

angelica wrote:

RainDog rules!

Thanks, but theres no need to stroke my already over inflated ego, angelica.


Now, I'm not saying I don't want you too. I'm just saying that there's no need.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

Thanks, but theres no need to stroke my already over inflated ego, angelica.


Now, I'm not saying I don't want you too. I'm just saying that there's no need.

As long as it fits within my humble schtick, I'm more than happy to stroke away. ( :eek: )

RainDog

angelica wrote:

As long as it fits within my humble schtick, I'm more than happy to stroke away. ( :eek: )

Oh, it'll fit, babe.


Wait. Just to be clear; a "humble schtick" is a reference to your humility, and not a euphemism for .... .. something more, right?

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

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?

angelica

RainDog wrote:

Oh, it'll fit, babe.


Wait. Just to be clear; a "humble schtick" is a reference to your humility, and not a euphemism for .... .. something more, right?

RainDog, did you just call me "babe"?? lol

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

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.

RainDog

angelica wrote:

RainDog, did you just call me "babe"?? lol

If you see me getting mighty,
If you see me getting high,
Knock me down......

Yeah, that's not really my style. Just trying to be a little self destructive.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

If you see me getting mighty,
If you see me getting high,
Knock me down......

Yeah, that's not really my style. Just trying to be a little self destructive.

Oh, too bad. I was getting a little light-headed, there, and almost to the point of letting you slip just about anything by me.

puremagic

onelongsong wrote:

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?

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

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.

inmytree

know1 wrote:

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...

onelongsong

inmytree wrote:

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.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

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?

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

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.

angelica

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.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

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?