General Pace on Gays

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
For those critics calling for his head, or calling him a “tool” and an embarrassment…show me YOUR Bio and all that you’ve accomplished in your Life…

[/quote]
He’s a tool–just like the rest of the elitest officer corps of every military force–worldwide. Do the politicians bidding tool!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
That would of course imply that homosexality IS immoral in any way.

He compared it to adultery, not quite an accurate comparison. It is more like premarital sex.

[/quote]

Sorry Zap, it is only like premarital sex provided the gay person in question wasn’t married. If he or she were in a marriage of convenience to get the loons off their back, or married to another gay person, as is possible in many countries, then it would be adultery.

Which leads to an interesting question…

If you’re cheating on your gay partner who stayed at home, while serving in the military, and you cheat with your spouse of convenience, would that be immoral?

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

To me, he doesn’t owe me, or anyone else, a damn thing…

Semper Fi[/quote]

Fuck his decorations. When I was in Iraq a local air wing unit (I was a grunt thank god) fired off some record level of sorties. As such, every officer in the unit was given a bronze star.

All the enlisted guys that kept the planes running got nada. Decorations are a joke (read: John Kerry). Some of the finest Marines I served with walked out with the 2/3 stack (2 seas service deployment ribbons and MAYBE a good cookie). Officers consistently write each other up for awards while forgetting the enlisted man.

Gen. Pace, much like many officers is nothing more than a silly politician that plays Marine. He embarrased the Corps in his teary eyed speech about immigration and again embarassed us by making us look like bigots. Fuck him. I was so proud to see a Marine finally lead the Joint Chiefs and instead he makes us look like fools.

Semper Fi, fuck the other guy, right sir?

mike

Homosexual perverts, adulterers, pedophiles and such, are all moral relativists. They fear moral condemnation by moral absolutists (such as myself) and shriek: “You’re a bigot and a homophobe! There are no absolutes! No one can be sure they’re right!!!” They know that they should be men, but choose to evade that fact. To indulge their perversions, they destroy morality.

But: Man has a distinct and unique nature. He can make choices. He needs morality, in order to live. Moral absolutism is a function of his definition. Right and wrong exist, no matter how loudly the moral relativists shriek otherwise.

Look at our country — its falling apart because idiots who seek to escape from morality abound. They denounce someone, like General Pace, who seeks to keep the Satanic practices out of his Corps.

This country has become a giant in body with a mooching relativist midget in place of its soul (Ayn Rand). Some of this is evident in this thread.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Homosexual perverts, adulterers, pedophiles and such, are all moral relativists. They fear moral condemnation by moral absolutists (such as myself) and shriek: “You’re a bigot and a homophobe! There are no absolutes! No one can be sure they’re right!!!” They know that they should be men, but choose to evade that fact. To indulge their perversions, they destroy morality.

But: Man has a distinct and unique nature. He can make choices. He needs morality, in order to live. Moral absolutism is a function of his definition. Right and wrong exist, no matter how loudly the moral relativists shriek otherwise.

Look at our country — its falling apart because idiots who seek to escape from morality abound. They denounce someone, like General Pace, who seeks to keep the Satanic practices out of his Corps.

This country has become a giant in body with a mooching relativist midget in place of its soul (Ayn Rand). Some of this is evident in this thread.

[/quote]

For someone that thinks that morals can be deducted from a few basic principles you are not doing a good job at convincing us.

Why is homosexuality bad again?

There really is no easy way to combine Objectivism with religious dogma and you know that, don`t you?

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

Semper Fi, fuck the other guy, right sir?

mike[/quote]

General = politician.

I have read that Colonel is the highest rank for a man with honor.

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Homosexual perverts, adulterers, pedophiles and such, are all moral relativists. They fear moral condemnation by moral absolutists (such as myself) and shriek: “You’re a bigot and a homophobe! There are no absolutes! No one can be sure they’re right!!!” They know that they should be men, but choose to evade that fact. To indulge their perversions, they destroy morality.

But: Man has a distinct and unique nature. He can make choices. He needs morality, in order to live. Moral absolutism is a function of his definition. Right and wrong exist, no matter how loudly the moral relativists shriek otherwise.

Look at our country — its falling apart because idiots who seek to escape from morality abound. They denounce someone, like General Pace, who seeks to keep the Satanic practices out of his Corps.

This country has become a giant in body with a mooching relativist midget in place of its soul (Ayn Rand). Some of this is evident in this thread.

For someone that thinks that morals can be deducted from a few basic principles you are not doing a good job at convincing us.

Why is homosexuality bad again?

There really is no easy way to combine Objectivism with religious dogma and you know that, don`t you?[/quote]

Certainly. That’s why I said that perversions are either against God (for the religious) or against Nature, for the non-believers. Gays are a malfunction, much like any other disease, though choice plays an infinitely larger role there than disease.

To be a ‘good’, something has to of benefit to every human being. Freedom is of benefit. Honesty is of benefit. Integrity is of benefit. Now, what if everyone was gay? What if all adults committed adultery? What if all adults were pedophiles? See the difference?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

Semper Fi, fuck the other guy, right sir?

mike

General = politician.

I have read that Colonel is the highest rank for a man with honor.[/quote]

LOL, good call.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

To be a ‘good’, something has to of benefit to every human being. Freedom is of benefit. Honesty is of benefit. Integrity is of benefit. Now, what if everyone was gay? What if all adults committed adultery? What if all adults were pedophiles? See the difference?

[/quote]

That something is only good when it benefits every human being is simply not true, very often diversity ensures the survival of the species even though individuals pay a high prize for it.

The point still stands:

If homosexuality is unnatural why does nature make so many of them? How do you know they do not serve any purpose?

Like worker bees that do not themselves procreate they could still be able to further their genes well-being.

Integrity and Honesty benefit the individual? Since when?

What if all adults committed adultry? Don`t know, most of them do.

And, because the point is so absurd, again:

The final arbiter what is natural and what is not is nature.

Nature produces homosexuals with a certain statistic regularity.

So how can it be unnatural?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Honor, duty, country…where do we find these values?

Homosexuality is immoral because it is a choice made against either God or nature, depending on if you accept religion or science.[/quote]

Wow. Homosexuality is unnatural? Bull-fucking-shit. Do you and your anti-gay friends have any idea how abundant it is in nature?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

So for the sake of accuracy, how is it against God or nature again? I am dying to hear some valid arguments.

[quote]orion wrote:
If homosexuality is unnatural why does nature make so many of them? How do you know they do not serve any purpose?[/quote]

It’s harder to prove a negative. But you probably knew that already…

Homosexuality is frowned upon because its sole purpose is sex. But if you look closely, that’s probably the only reason straight couples are formed as well (besides tax cuts!).

Anyway, there’s something that bothers me about how natural homosexuality is; Why is it that queers are many folds more likely to get AIDS than others? Doesn’t it imply homosexuality is less “natural”?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Ignore the fool. He’s a troll.[/quote]

I started the thread and you’re on it. How about following your own advice?

Here’s my advice: Try walking to England.

[quote]Ren wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Honor, duty, country…where do we find these values?

Homosexuality is immoral because it is a choice made against either God or nature, depending on if you accept religion or science.

Wow. Homosexuality is unnatural? Bull-fucking-shit. Do you and your anti-gay friends have any idea how abundant it is in nature?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

So for the sake of accuracy, how is it against God or nature again? I am dying to hear some valid arguments.

[/quote]

Since homosexuality can’t produce children, it is unnatural.

Why all the desire to go against your own identity as a man? Quit hiding from yourself, kick all the PC bullshit to the curb and assert your existence.

Relativistic morality, the morality which allows these unnatural things into our culture, is actually no morality at all. It assumes that humans have no defining charactersitics and that what’s moral one day is immoral the next.

But physical facts cannot simply be ignored. Each living thing has its own innate structure. BUT, we have freedom of choice. We NEED a morality to help us survive. To help us decide, we need Principles/Axioms. It is precisely this idea that the PC/relativistic ‘morality’ denies exists. It screams: “There are NO absolutes!” (ignoring that it just used one.)

Until all of us accept that we need a morality and that THAT morality is founded on absolutes, our society will simply drift toward dissolution — of course, that IS the goal of the Lib/Relativists, now isn’t it?

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

To be a ‘good’, something has to of benefit to every human being. Freedom is of benefit. Honesty is of benefit. Integrity is of benefit. Now, what if everyone was gay? What if all adults committed adultery? What if all adults were pedophiles? See the difference?

That something is only good when it benefits every human being is simply not true, very often diversity ensures the survival of the species even though individuals pay a high prize for it.

The point still stands:

If homosexuality is unnatural why does nature make so many of them? How do you know they do not serve any purpose?

Like worker bees that do not themselves procreate they could still be able to further their genes well-being.

Integrity and Honesty benefit the individual? Since when?

What if all adults committed adultry? Don`t know, most of them do.

And, because the point is so absurd, again:

The final arbiter what is natural and what is not is nature.

Nature produces homosexuals with a certain statistic regularity.

So how can it be unnatural?

[/quote]

Well, I answered this in my post to Ren, a lot of it anyway. You really disagree that honesty, integrity, fidelity, and so forth are good things for all people to practice?

Well then, what IS a person? What is his normal function? Under normal circumstance, is it at one time bad to lie but good to lie the next day? Is it fine to sell out one day but bad the next? Is it good one day to rape a child but evil the next? (See the story of Jessica Lunsford — still breaks my heart!)

Do humans have a specific identifiable definition, or not? If not, then I’m wrong of course. That would be hard to do for you though, since you have to prove that something does not exist.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Semper Fi, fuck the other guy, right sir?

[/quote]
Only enlisted marines know about being handed the Big Green Weenie. And we know it sucks donkey balls.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Honor, duty, country…where do we find these values?

Homosexuality is immoral because it is a choice made against either God or nature, depending on if you accept religion or science.

Wow. Homosexuality is unnatural? Bull-fucking-shit. Do you and your anti-gay friends have any idea how abundant it is in nature?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

So for the sake of accuracy, how is it against God or nature again? I am dying to hear some valid arguments.

Since homosexuality can’t produce children, it is unnatural.

Why all the desire to go against your own identity as a man? Quit hiding from yourself, kick all the PC bullshit to the curb and assert your existence.

Relativistic morality, the morality which allows these unnatural things into our culture, is actually no morality at all. It assumes that humans have no defining charactersitics and that what’s moral one day is immoral the next.

But physical facts cannot simply be ignored. Each living thing has its own innate structure. BUT, we have freedom of choice. We NEED a morality to help us survive. To help us decide, we need Principles/Axioms. It is precisely this idea that the PC/relativistic ‘morality’ denies exists. It screams: “There are NO absolutes!” (ignoring that it just used one.)

Until all of us accept that we need a morality and that THAT morality is founded on absolutes, our society will simply drift toward dissolution — of course, that IS the goal of the Lib/Relativists, now isn’t it?

[/quote]

But by the same token one can say that sex purely for pleasure with no goal of reproduction is unnatural, since it is not to produce children? How about masturbation, no kids there, immoral? unnatural?

I am not a fan of PC bullshit, I despise it for the most part, I just find that some of your ideas are fanciful are far stretched. Absolute morality? I disagree with that. If this were the case we should still be living by the same rules as we did 2000 years ago.

I agree that society needs morality, but that begs the question, who’s morality? Do you accept what Christians claim as moral? What Muslims claim is moral? What Buddhists say is moral? All of which would have us leading very different lives if we were to follow those paths.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Anyway, there’s something that bothers me about how natural homosexuality is; Why is it that queers are many folds more likely to get AIDS than others? Doesn’t it imply homosexuality is less “natural”?[/quote]

Because small cuts and tears are pretty normal during anal sex?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Well, I answered this in my post to Ren, a lot of it anyway. You really disagree that honesty, integrity, fidelity, and so forth are good things for all people to practice?

Well then, what IS a person? What is his normal function? Under normal circumstance, is it at one time bad to lie but good to lie the next day? Is it fine to sell out one day but bad the next? Is it good one day to rape a child but evil the next? (See the story of Jessica Lunsford — still breaks my heart!)

Do humans have a specific identifiable definition, or not? If not, then I’m wrong of course. That would be hard to do for you though, since you have to prove that something does not exist.

[/quote]

In your post to Ren you state that homosexual does not produce offspring and is therefore unnatural.

A lot of animal behaviour does not produce offspring, sometimes it kills them and is still considered natural.

And again, if nature produces them, they are natural, whatever you think nature should have intended.

On moral absolutes:

If I fuck a guy to prevent a child from being raped, my actions would be what, if seen from an absolute moral point of view?

Yes, there are no moral absolutes because, no, there is no final moral authority.

Tough luck, but most people tend to live quite well with that.

[quote]orion wrote:
Yes, there are no moral absolutes because, no, there is no final moral authority.
[/quote]

Oh, but didn’t you hear the US is most definitely the moral authority on everything that is right and good in the world and those that do not agree with us or live by our standards should be changed to fit our world view–so we can feel like we’re at home when we finally decide to travel.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Please tell me you didn’t mean that…

Are you telling me that the sum total of all of our accomplishments are canceled when we say something stupid?

With that reasoning, then none of us have accomplished anything…

Mufasa[/quote]

I just meant whatever you said was still stupid. He may be a great man, but that doesn’t make what he said any less stupid than if a horrible person said it.

I did not mean to discredit his merits in anyway, and I apologize if thats how I came off.