Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why real men confuse and anger Liberals
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Real men, the kind that understand their roles of protection and provision in this life, to their families, and for our world, confuse liberals. They also make them really mad.

They don't intend to, it's just a side product that can't be helped.

When a real man speaks with plainness and honesty it sends shivers down the spines of those who oppose him, and in a sense reveals their weakness and inadequacies. It exposes the fact that girly men are better at studying their navel than slaying dragons. Naturally when one then encounters a dragon slayer, a girly man finds it difficult even uncomfortable to deal with.

Since the modern feminists began marching in the 1960s - and everything became feminized - real men have dwindled in number. But every now and then they pop back up rearing the ugly head of truth, confidence, and unrepentant strength.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace proved to be just such a man this week.

In the renewed debate being pushed by the radical sexual mafia amongst the liberal elements of our government the issue of altering the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is being discussed. It would seem natural that the press would take interest in whether actual military members desire to see the rule changed. Turns out the overwhelming majority don't. So when a liberal propaganda machine, cleverly disguised as a Midwest newspaper asks the very top military man in the nation his opinion on such a rule - its bound to cause people to take note.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune this week General Pace stated:

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” he said. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

Of course this simple statement which is easy to understand and of its own context is self explanatory riled the feathers of the girly men, the manly women, and members of both political parties who are seeking the White House.

Hillary and Obama both decided at first to avoid a position on the substance of the remarks. They then both released statements stating something completely different saying, "homosexuality was not immoral" to them. (Of course the General had been very clear in what he labeled as immoral - it was the specific acts.) On the GOP side, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have both long expressed a desire to see "open" service for homosexuals. "Open service" has become defined as being allowed to act on those homosexual inclinations that some feel. The military's current policy does not ban how one thinks, how they allow their emotions to pulse through their bodies, or even what they believe spiritually or politically about homosexual acts. The current policy merely holds in place the rule that they are not to be acted upon.

The comparison, for those of you who are liberal and still deeply confused by such blatant simple truth, goes like this. As a married man a soldier may believe that adultery is ok. He may have no pang of conscience within him that restrains him from doing it. He may often in his mind greatly crave another officer's wife, and even contemplate how he would approach it. But the military has designated acting on such impulses as being unallowable.

The General understands that were the military to lift such strict codes of behavior and to in essence allow some Godless, immoral viewpoint to become the basis for actions - that it would have devastating impact on the mental, physical, and intellectual discipline that the greatest fighting force on planet earth in such need of. Pace understands that to begin giving in to a society that argues its military should be run under the same feminized and immoral feelings of "if it feels good - do it", would be to invite disaster.

General Pace is a strong man. A man who stands in contrast to another man who has lived most of his public life in captivity to the modern feminist mindset - former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey.

McGreevey revealed this week in his on-going divorce dispute that he is now seeking child-support payments from the woman he used to provide a living for - while she was busy raising their daughter. That's right - he's off in anonymous sex trysts in national parks, and his wife was putting their beautiful seven year old girl to bed at night having to try to explain where daddy was. Of course she didn't know either. The point being that real man would never leave the protection and provision of the wife he swore an oath before God to. And certainly no real man would be off in the woods, doing unspeakable deeds and putting his family, job, and community at risk.

Yet the criticism from this week has been fierce and focused only on Pace - a real man.

Real men take it on the chin sometimes. Many times they are maligned.

But at the end of the day there is more contentment in the heart of a man who lives his life with integrity - then there ever could be with men who live enslaved to the impulses that guide their libidos. Liberals stand in profound confusion at how this is so, and because it is they grow personally hostile to someone knowing such contentment.

I do know that clarity and contentment in my own life.

Would that I could give it to every liberal I know.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

wonderful
this is the cind of thing people need to relise that this generall has the nuts to speak his mind and what a grate job he did about it brovo

Gene Touchet- Bible contains Word of God



Gene Touchet writes: “The Bible is a collection of lore which was designed to sustain a wandering tribe during hard times.”

I confronted this lie the other day, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may not even realize it is a lie.

Presumably you are aware, at least in a general way, of the overwhelming body of evidence supporting the Bible. Evidence provided and/or discovered by both believers and skeptics alike. I invited you to provide evidence for your claims. You chose not to do so at that time.

I invite you to do so again.

It is certainly beyond my ability to convince anyone to believe in God, that is between the individual and God. However, it is well within my ability to engage in a discussion regarding Christian and Bible evidence.

You have made an extraordinary and serious accusation against the Word of God. If you will defend your position, I believe that an open and honest discussion will lead you to a different conclusion.

Will you defend your position?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Gene Touchet writes: “It worked.”

Indeed, the Word of God always works:

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Gene Touchet writes: “It contains good information for the times.”

Indeed, and for ALL time.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Gene Touchet writes: “Out of context it is an interesting anthropological tome. Nothing more.”

Then don’t take it out of context. The proper “context” is God’s revelation to all mankind, not just to people of times past, but to all people. If you are a member of the human race, then the proper context includes *you*.


God is not dead; neither is He the God of the dead.

Christ Himself taught us to reason from the scriptures, demonstrating the precision and accuracy of the written Word of God by arguing from something as seemingly inconsequential as the tense of the verb “AM” (not “WAS”) in Matthew 22:31-33, in reference to Exodus chapter 3, verse 6:


(Exodus 3:6) “Moreover he said, I [am] the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.” (KJV)


(Matthew 22:31-33) “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, [32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. [33] And when the multitude heard [this], they were astonished at his doctrine.” (KJV)



To MrMorality and TH people...
The 3/19 post at 7:44AM was written by a poster named "ihatefags" - he changed his user name to "mrmorality".

Nice try, Mr. Morality.

Do you think I was born yesterday?


ANTIteenmommas
I am not worried about cutting Kevin any slack for his beliefs, but I do draw a line at making insulting comments about somebodies spouse. You called his wife a "tramp". Her views are not known, and I gather from what little I have read that she is a very nice person. In any event, she is not here to defend herself.
Making crude and graphic suggestions to Kevin about the intimacy he shares with his wife are deeply inapproprite and unseemly. I expect these kinds of attacks from people who obsess about US, and some "Christians" tend to go into graphic, pornographic and unsettling depictions of what they think gay sex must be like. You are only encouraging this kind of unnecessary verbal assault on our community. Please consider the import of what you say, and how it affects all of us. If we are critisizing hate, then we only destroy our own case by returning hate. I have fallen into this trap more then once.


As to your questions:

I am a Republican because I believe in a party of individual responsibility, individual freedoms, fiscal restraint and support for defense. I am more of a Western "Sagebrush Rebellion" Goldwater Republican...and I am at odds with the Southern Social conservatives for the time being. One day, our wing will dominate again.

I don't generally discuss my wife in this forum, but I will make an exception this time. She is a normal woman, and is not gay. How our marriage will progress is still being worked out, and we may well have a celibate relationship. I love her, and I will respect and support her decision.

Sincerely
AnneMarie AKA celtic-dragon

Everyone
Read Brian's post regarding fornication in its' many guises, homo and hetero. I guess that's the biggest problem with Pace's remarks, the underlying personal bias.

It Starts With P and Ends with Enis
I'm pretty sure there's one and ONLY one requirement in order to be a real man.

I Don't "Hate" Anyone..
"I must admit that I'm baffled that you are a Republican- at best you should be an Independent. I just don't know how you can support a party that hates you from their very core."

Someone just said this to celtic dragon..

But I don't hate celtic dragon, nor anyone here..

Nor do Christians, or even most Conservatives "hate" people just because they do not agree with them, or their life choices..

It is the politicized gays, and Liberals who use the rhetoric of the word "hate"..

Because we don't..


To Scott-Thank you and Bless you
"This is all a long way of trying to say that I think you might be surprised how many people appreciate and are edified by your faith and your posts, Mrs. V. I’m sure the majority of people who read these forums never post at all, there are many who just read. We can never know what positive affect our efforts might have, but we can always try our best, and hope for the best, and if what we say (and how we say it) is acceptable to Him, we can hope that He will bless our efforts, along with the hearts and minds of some of those who need to consider the truth of His Word.

There is no telling whose heart might be softened and whose eyes might be opened to the truth of His Word as a result of being pointed in the right direction by a Christian doing his or her best. Maybe no one is benefited; but maybe someone is or will be. And even if it was only just one person who ended up seeking out the truth of God’s Word, obeying the Gospel and changing his or her life as a result of a seed that was planted here, then all of the time and effort will have been rewarded far beyond our ability to comprehend.

Whether or not such a good thing ever comes from the sincere efforts made by some here on TH we will probably never know in this life, but we might find out when we open our eyes on the other side."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SO well said Scott, and thank you brother.
What, and all, you said above is probably a big part of the reason I keep on coming by and posting here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"So be of good cheer; please know that your efforts are appreciated (at least by me, and I suspect by many others!), and please continue to do your best, as often as you are able :-)

Thank you again Mrs. V,

Scott"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you so much. I truly appreciate it. I am a fan of the whole "seize the day" idea.in a Christian way.I guess Liberals would call that "conscious" living. I just say..living in God's love and the Golden rule. Plus, you're so right, we just never really know who we are encouraging, or how much, or who can be brought into God's kingdom, just because we took some time.

I have to say that makes me feel better.

We are never promised tomorrow. With that said, I think we should not hold back on those kindnesses or good words unsaid.

On the other side of it, it can be a lonely experience..for so many people..

I know I do this for my family those I love..and for God..

So really, all that matters are those things, and the audience of One.

But what you said made a big difference to me, and it matters.

As for your person who said kind words to you..

I would track them down and tell them.

Appreciation can be so lacking these days, and I think the body of Christ needs it with each other, surely, and perhaps more than others.

Anyway, it's nice not to assume..

Bless you for taking the time too.

Mrs.V and her Husband

Attention Townhall Editors.Over Here
I would encourage all Townhall posters, and readers, to use the links on your screen, or any related area here, to alert Townhall of
ANY AND ALL vulgar, hateful,(truly hateful, not opinions or people you hate), demeaning, slanderous, OR DEROGATORY language used either on comments areas, or in blogs here.

These would include graphic sexual discussions, of a homosexual or heterosexual nature, allusions thereof to such behaviors, words or body parts etc. or any kind of language or speech which can be truly termed graphic or offensive, and has no basis for it to be used at such a graphic level.

As the Bible says, to not even mention such things, and common decency should preclude others from doing so.

I do not work for Townhall.com, but I appreciate celtic dragon's sentiment. The comment made by ANTIteenmommas, and some others, actually, is vile, and truly offensive.

It is indeed over the line, and many of these comments, just by virtue of their GRAPHIC and OFFENSIVE NATURE, should be just cause for comments and commenters to be banned or removed from this forum.

I ask you to also alert Townhall editors to this post and concern.

Thank you

Mrs. V - Re: Thank you ;-)



Mrs. V writes: “To tell you the truth, I have often been put off about coming here and not just so much by you, perse. I really haven’t felt a feeling of mutual supportiveness from those in agreement with me here in any particular way. Even though I’ve said Mr. McCullough is unfairly treated, it is ironic that, for better or worse because of his strong and prominent voice, has probably had a lot of people communicating with him and supporting him. For little me, just sharing my views on here, from a Biblical perspective, I have not felt very much affinity from anyone or support at all, KMC included...”


Hi Mrs. V,

I certainly appreciate your efforts here at TH on behalf of God’s Word. I know you are trying your best, and that you have the courage stand for what you believe. I also know how frustrating that can be sometimes.

I agree that there may not always *seem* to be much support for those who are trying to stand for God’s Word to the best of our ability, but I don’t take it in a negative way and I hope maybe you won’t either, because I think that’s just part of the nature of “conservatives” in general. We’re just not the group-hug personality type, for the most part.

Occasionally someone will make a positive comment about one of my posts, and I assure you that it is always very much appreciated. Someone was kind enough to make such a comment the other day, saying:


“In a strange way, when I see posts by my fellow Christians (whom I don't even know), it helps to bolster my faith. I see the courage and the patience with which the occasional Christian writer leads people through a discussion of God's laws and His Character. It personifies His Ways. Exactly McCulloch's point of article. Thanks for your effort. C”


This was a very kind and edifying thing for him to say, and I appreciated it a great deal, edification works both ways. I thought several times about posting a “thank you”, but I couldn’t think of a way to do it without coming across as some kind of “mutual admiration society”, so I hoped that it was simply understood that any support is always greatly appreciated. I offer support for other posters here on TH occasionally, and I don’t generally expect an acknowledgement, because I figure they think the same way about it as I do ;-)

Maybe that ‘s just a guy thing, now that I think about it, or maybe it’s a conservative thing, or maybe it’s a combination of both. I didn’t end up writing a “thank you” to the person I quoted above, so I hope the person who wrote that complimentary post will see this one and understand that I definitely appreciated his comments.

This is all a long way of trying to say that I think you might be surprised how many people appreciate and are edified by your faith and your posts, Mrs. V. I’m sure the majority of people who read these forums never post at all, there are many who just read. We can never know what positive affect our efforts might have, but we can always try our best, and hope for the best, and if what we say (and how we say it) is acceptable to Him, we can hope that He will bless our efforts, along with the hearts and minds of some of those who need to consider the truth of His Word.

There is no telling whose heart might be softened and whose eyes might be opened to the truth of His Word as a result of being pointed in the right direction by a Christian doing his or her best. Maybe no one is benefited; but maybe someone is or will be. And even if it was only just one person who ended up seeking out the truth of God’s Word, obeying the Gospel and changing his or her life as a result of a seed that was planted here, then all of the time and effort will have been rewarded far beyond our ability to comprehend.

Whether or not such a good thing ever comes from the sincere efforts made by some here on TH we will probably never know in this life, but we might find out when we open our eyes on the other side.

So be of good cheer; please know that your efforts are appreciated (at least by me, and I suspect by many others!), and please continue to do your best, as often as you are able :-)


Thank you again Mrs. V,

Scott



Reply to Slacker,Just One More Thing
Reply to Slacker,Just One More Thing

The quote I had placed on my longer reply to you, in an earlier post at this comments area, was in reply to a comment you made that was virtually a replica of a quote made by politicized gays.

The quote by them was sharing a technique
they've used for their gay agenda.

For all intents and purposes, you were basically almost exactly quoting them..

Here was their original quote. Anyone can scroll up to contrast your comment from the one here:

"And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!"

For a full print story about the gay agenda, and more details on it, please click here
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:2I8wfheErKIJ:www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/TVCSpecialRptOverhaulingStraight.PDF+camel+get+his+nose+inside+the+tent,only+later+his+unsightly+derriere&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

In the final analysis, I pray for Mr. McCullough, and Mr. Pace, as I would a friend of the family. I do this not just because they are advocating for God's will, way and Truth, but because there are probably many ill-minded powers-that-be that have contempt for them and what they stand for.

And, as I said in another post earlier, because our family is in agreement with these men, those who criticize ~KMC don't just knock him and his loved ones, they also knock me and my family, because we are Christians, and in full agreement with his views and ideologies.

Plus, by far, I do not think that Liberalism is the dominant or popular view. Although the liberal media tries to push it that way..

So I'll say it once more. When you cut down me, or Mr. McCullough, you are, actually, offending and cutting down hundreds of thousands of other people, maybe more, who live by and share the exact same view..

Shwew..

I oughtta be paid for the time I've spent here lately..

*rolls eyes*
*flips hair..*


ANTIteenmommas
I have been trying to support you during these arguments, but your comment toward Kevin McCullough really went over the line. What you said does nothing to advance our cause of equality, and gives ammunition to others in this forum who argue that all GLBT people are debauched reprobates. I hope you consider a retraction of the statement.

Paragons of virtue
Using this logic, that everybody in the military must be paragons of virtue (as defined by Mr. McCullough) all the time, drinking should be completely banned. And sex should only be allowed for procreation and in the missionary position.

That's crap.

The military needs order and discipline, but that is unrelated to any viewpoint on morality, liberal or conservative. For the safety and success of our war-fighters, the military is wise to ban sex between individuals who go into combat together. That's why women should not be allowed to go into combat - the added stress is dangerous, and that's why homosexual sex should not be allowed unit members.

But once those brave men have an opportunity to blow off steam, they should be allowed to enjoy themselves however they see fit with people outside their unit.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

Reply to Slacker, Pt 3's A Charm..
Just to say that Mr. McCullough and company probably get a lot more from me posting at his comments area than any kind of help or support we’ve ever gotten from them. Which is fine in one sense, I don’t mind standing up for people who are speaking Truth, and in so doing, doing a good thing. Nor am I averse to standing up for such people, especially when they are unfairly slandered and maligned as he and his have been. That is a thing I am glad to do, and I am not looking for any kind of help from him or his crew anyway, not that we would get it.

I am just saying, as a prominent figure with views, Mr. McCullough gets a good big size helping of support, and good with all the bad he deals with, quite likely. For me, posting here, I am mostly only dealing with bad, not much good. Other than the help and clarity my voice can contribute. This is fine for me, basically. And I stress, basically..

"When internalized and hidden, this fear of one of our most fundamental natural drives leads to self loathing and very dark and obsessive behavior. You may not agree with me, but I am sure it underlies the parade of gay bashing preachers like Ted Haggard and his ilk that we constantly see exposed. Whether KMC fits into this mold or not I do not claim to know. But the pattern is obvious. In any case KMC could care less what my opinion is of him I am sure."

No one here "hates" or is "bashing" anyone. Although there may be real hatred from the Liberals and some homosexuals here who can't stand Kevin that much is true. Sadly, they have also used this forum to take out that venom on people like me. I wish you wouldn't keep alluding to others' sexuality, as if you know them. I don't know Mr. and Mrs. McCullough do you?

"Secondly, your agument that you and others like you have nothing against homosexuals that you just dislike and want to stop their private behavior, which you in your moral certainty believe is destructive, is irrelevant. If you re-read my original post, you will see that I have no problem with disallowing sexual behavior, whether hetero- or homosexual in the military. In the business world it has no place and would get me fired from the place where I work. The military has every right to disallow public sexual behavior between on-duty troops as well."

Fine..

"This does not however, extend to give my employer or the military a right to assert who someone can choose as a life partner.
If that makes me an appologist for some gay agenda in your mind, there is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. In reality, to any thoughful individual, it just makes me "fair, balanced," and wise."

I don't see how you determine yourself "fair, balanced, and wise" just because you suggest, above, that "life partners" should be a choice for gays, as in marriage I assume you are referring to. The highest source of wisdom comes from the Bible and God alone. He is the One who made the laws, and decrees, and set up the world with man and woman. This is not a thing I made up. It is not *my* decree.

Just because a person has an ability to speak, or write, in calm, respectful, or intelligent manner does not give them any special wisdom, insight, knowledge. Nor does it give them any moral high ground. I’m not saying you are taking that, just that we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Plenty of academes, and social engineers, politicians, what have you, have prized their ability to speak in smooth and soothing tones. Thereby, lulling the consciences of the many they speak to about these kinds of things.

I am not saying you are doing this either. Just that this is generally how it happens. It is done in a smooth, calm, often seemingly-pleasing way. But it all amounts to the same thing. Lies and tolerance of lies, because of one's own inability to tolerate Truth, or make personal moral distinctions..

I'm not calling you a "bad man" slacker, this is just how I see it. That, and I, obviously, don't fully agree with you :^)


Reply to Slacker, Pt 2
"There are two other forks in the road where you and I part company as well."

I have been parting company with quite a few on here slacker. Indeed, despite the popular impression here, I am no close friend of Mr. and Mrs. McCullough. I thought I should note this, since there seems to be the crude implication on here I should be praying for him beyond the normal way that Christians pray for each other, or well meaning prayers for strangers.

For what it's worth, I have only met the man once, in a bookstore, with my Husband. I have visited his chatroom, along with others there, and occasionally sent him emails, in the past, but that is far from knowing him. Also, I am nowhere in the league of where he may be financially, or in terms of status, or any other way, from what I can glean from the postings KMC has had about himself, and his families shopping sprees, for instance..

I simply agree with his views, and when I stick up for him and his, I feel, by association, I am doing this for me and my family, and other Christians. But not because we are fast friends or anything. I’m not saying we are enemies, far from it, just friends to his cause, and wishing them the best. But other than a fan, I am no one to him. I do not know the man's heart, but I know his show, and issues, best I can say. And of course, since they are a Christian family, we are their sister and brother in Christ.

To tell you the truth, I have often been put off about coming here and not just so much by you, perse. I really haven’t felt a feeling of mutual supportiveness from those in agreement with me here in any particular way. Even though I’ve said Mr. McCullough is unfairly treated, it is ironic that, for better or worse because of his strong and prominent voice, has probably had a lot of people communicating with him and supporting him. For little me, just sharing my views on here, from a Biblical perspective, I have not felt very much affinity from anyone or support at all, KMC included...

"For one thing, I don't accept the bible as the unerring word of god, so your arguments based on that position do nothing to convince me of anything. That doesn't mean that I don't think there are important "truths" in the bible, nor do I have any problem with you taking the bible, as you myopically understand it, as literal truth hook line and sinker. I am just saying the bible does not convince me that there is anything immoral about homosexual behavior."

Only God's Holy Spirit can convict and convince any man or woman of anything, including personal sin. A homosexual, male or female, is so much more than just a definition of their sexual persuasion. I believe that, and I've seen it. The change, I mean, in others. Sometimes their deliverance is wrought with ups and downs, as no one is perfect. We consider them our brothers and sisters no less. At this point, after redemption, people want to do the right thing.

"I also do not share your concern that tolerating homosexual behavior in our society will somehow lead homosexuals to "recruit" unwitting heterosexuals to their orientation or life style. That may be a big concern that you and KMC may share, but it is baseless. I have known a lot of people in my life, but I have never known any straight person to be enticed to experiment with homosexuality or the gay life style by "gay propaganda"."

That's fine, but it's fact, and not just my "concern". Many, many families are suffering this kind of treacherous behavior right now, including families in New England, and in the Mid West. But everywhere, really.

"There are people who have a tendency toward homosexuality, but have been convinced by foolish parents or authority figures that there is something "wrong" with expressing their own nature that can lead to their "eternal damnation". They can become obsessed with fear and often do everything they can to "prove" to the world they are "normal." They are driven by their fear of what they feel and see in themselves. Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature knows fear breeds hatred and anger."

Fear is also used as a natural protective agent by God. In fact, most fear in us is a sign that alerts us to danger, or that a thing we are about to do is wrong. As calmly as you speak, and as smoothly as you convey your opinions advocating homosexuality, parents are not "fools" about their children, particularly when a danger is ahead. This is a reality any parent knows, and can see.


brian / ALL fornication is immoral...


brian writes: “In all of the posts here I have yet to read of a single agument explaining why homosexuality is "immoral". I find that quite telling-the fact that no one can come up with a reasonable argument as to why homosexuality is immoral.”


Sorry Brian, I’m late to this one. I’ll try to address your questions and concerns.

American Heritage Dictionary
im•mor•al - adj. Contrary to established moral principles.

The established moral principles of Western civilization in general, and the United States probably even moreso, are founded upon the Bible. You can reject that premise if you like, but it does not change anything.

This is not nearly as complicated as many people try to make it. It is not even necessary to reference the Old Testament and New Testament scripture condemning homosexual relations specifically. More simply, homosexual activity is one type of fornication, fornication is sin, and sin is immoral.


1. God instituted marriage between one man and one woman from the beginning: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24, KJV)


2. Fornication -noun
voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other. (Dictionary.com Unabridged, v 1.1) (note: while this is a modern dictionary definition, the term "fornication" [as far as physical sexual activity is concerned] applies to all sexual activity outside of marriage)


3. Fornication is a sin: “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18, KJV)


4. The only sexual activity that is not fornication is sexual activity between a married man and woman:

A) “Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2, KJV)

B) “Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4, KJV)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



brian writes: “By now, most realise citing the Bible is useless as it also says crap like eating shrimp is an abomination, children should be executed for swearing at one's parents, and if you rape a woman, ya have to buy her from her father....”


This way of thinking demonstrates a profound misunderstanding about the Word of God as contained in the Bible. If you do not understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, that in no way invalidates God’s Word; it just means you don’t understand yet.

Whatever problems you have with the Law of Moses, you will have to take them up with God (not conservatives). Similarly, whatever problems you have with the New Testament you will also have to take up with God.

The Old Testament Law was nailed to the cross and taken out of the way when Jesus was crucified. With the death of the testator, the New Testament Law was established, ratified with the blood of Christ.

That means all of the red-herring arguments about shellfish and unruly children go out the window. They no longer count, nor do they apply. The Law of Moses was specifically for the Jewish people, during a specific time period, and that time period is over.

The New Testament covers much of the same moral territory, but it is not a “carry-over” from the Old Testament. Unlike the Old Law/Law of Moses which applied specifically to the Jews, the New Testament applies to all men, both Jews and Gentiles.

Not only does the New Testament condemn fornication, the general term for sexual immorality (the word “fornication” occurs 32 times in 28 verses in the NT), the New Testament specifically condemns homosexual activity, which is a specific type of fornication:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:26-27)


The New Testament also addresses the reality that some who engaged in homosexual activity (“And such were some of you”, 1 Corinthians 6:11a) were capable of repenting, turning away from that sin, and living according to God’s Word:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



brian writes: “…funny how conservatives don't mention THOSE Biblical rules, no, they just cherry-pick the anti-gay Bible rules, and "forget" the others.”


Again, the Old Law was fulfilled by Christ, and taken away, nailed to His cross. The New Testament was established by Christ and ratified by His blood (as the Old Law was also ratified by blood). If I contract with you to build a house, and you build the house and I pay you for it, that contract is fulfilled and ended. It is the same with the Old Testament. It was fulfilled by Christ, and ended.

The Old Testament is still very important for understanding the character of God, how His plan of salvation was revealed to man over a period of nearly 1,600 years, the evidence of fulfilled prophecy, etc., etc., but we do NOT live under the Old Law today.

It is not about “cherry-picking”; there is no part of the Law of Moses that applies to us today in the New Testament or Gospel age. There is some commonality between the Old and New Law (murder is still murder and fornication is still fornication, and both are still sin), but the New Law is separate and distinct from the Old Law. Anyone who tries to adhere to part of the Old Law must adhere to all of the Old Law, and anyone who attempts to do so makes the sacrifice of Christ of no effect. To do so is to fall from grace.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



brian writes: “The next most popular reason given for homosexuality being immoral is AIDS being a "gay disease". Again, please take a trip to Africa and tell that to the millions of heteros who have AIDS there--guess that proves heterosexuality is immoral, cause by far, the majority of Africans with AIDS..... ARE HETEROSEXUAL. So using the logic of many bigots posting here, HETEROSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL.”


I am not educated enough about AIDS in Africa to comment knowledgeably on the subject, but I would certainly agree that heterosexual activity outside of marriage is also immoral, just as homosexual activity is. Both are sin.

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted and sanctioned by God; marriage between members of the same sex was not, and is not. That is not my doing, that is God’s doing, and since He created everything, He also makes the rules. We can argue with those rules, but we can’t win that argument, not with God, and He’s the only one that really counts.



Upon Consideration...
It does seem quite funny that a person who breaks into a conversation to scream "PERVERT" can be so thin skinned when accused of something he doesn't like...and then threatens to run crying to management!! :D

Whah! The mean Republican Tranny is saying bad things to me!!

I bet Mary Katherine Hamm will laugh herself sick over this one, and then say "Play nice, or stay in seperate corners you two!"

Reply to Slacker, Pt 1
slacker writes

"Mrs. V. Given the profound level of your confusion and our previous exercises in talking past each other rather than engaging in real conversation, I do not think there is any chance I will ever convince you anything I have to say is of value."

I am sure it is of value to you. While I do respect all and their opinions, I do not agree with all of them. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say: "Given the profound level of your confusion...” I have not felt confused when I made my comments here, and I did not sense they were communicated with confusion. Perhaps this is another one of your rude comments to be, as you've done in the past. I am sorry if it is, probably, likely, as it is a rude kind of thing to say...

"It has value, though because on the general direction and arc of history on this issue I am correct, whether you agree the outcome I confidently predict is "moral" or not. I understand that you think that, believe me. However I am convinced you are on the wrong side of history. That's my main point, along with consoling you that it ain't going to be as bad as you and KMC think when you lose this social argument."

That's nice. But I am not looking to make "history" here, so don't particularly care what "side" I come out on. As for stating the obvious, about the direction of certain social issues and their outcomes, I don't see how stating a Liberal opining about how an issue may be going does anything, other that seek to strengthen an issue in a certain direction. (Kind of like a lie said over and over again could become truth. Even though it's a lie, and that's all it is...)

"Given the current attitude of the under 30 generation regarding homosexuality there is little chance of don't ask don't tell being repealed. Neither will gays and lesbians be prevented from serving in the military if they want to and are willing to abide by that policy because the military needs all the volunteers it can get. It is unlikely to do anything to diminish the supply of potential recruits."

I don't think homosexuals should be limited in their ventures, aside from airing their proclivities, and sexualizing things. Which I think was part of the point here...

"As I said, the nose of the camel is under the tent with "don't ask, don't tell" and the direction of society in general is toward more tolerance of homosexuality not less. The military will necessarily be affected by this trend and will become more tolerant, not less, over time."

And how sad for society. I wonder how many understand they are following a religion branded over by the word "Tolerance", when; indeed, those who follow such a world-view are amazingly NON tolerant of certain Biblically based and Conservative views...

"You may see this as some kind of "triumph" of a homosexual "agenda" but I don't. I am sure there are plenty of activist gays and lesbians who promote this as part of some social "agenda". Fine, but they can promote it all they want and it would go nowhere unless there was support for their position in the general population. My prediction of a gradual liberalization of military policy toward gays and lesbians is common sense and based on an understanding of existing social trends."

Common sense to a Liberal view, maybe. But saying it over and over will, respectfully, not make it common or sense...


strangers to truth indeed
**** jdw writes: Saturday, March, 17, 2007 7:23 PM
Celtic-dragon
"It's none of your d*mned business to begin with. get a clue, and get a life, because I am not going to roll over and die to make you feel comfortable in your neighborhood, or workplace. Get a grip, and deal with it."

It's my d*mned business once you try changing my society, just as it would be your d*mned busines once I tried *changing* your society. If you don't want it to be our business, stay in your closet.

As you're the one with the obvious mental/emotional problem, you're the one who needs to get a grip.

If all of us healthy people need to "deal with" your illness, then you, being "equal" and all, need to deal with it, as well. That means dealing with our healthy attitudes about homosexuality.****


This was from the Gregory Koukl column this last weekend. jdw quoted part of a response I had written to another person altogether, in which I said my marriage was none of her business. jdw felt it necessary to interject his opinion about my marriage and said " ...It's my d*mned business once you try changing my society"
I have no idea why he felt it necessary to comment on my marriage in a conversation that did not involve him, nor do I understand why he feels my marriage is his business, which he plainly affirms. I and my family have been stalked and harrassed before, and I have no patience for any hint of it in virtual or real life. I have no further need to respond to this ill-mannered hooligan, and I consider the matter closed, unless I am bothered again.

Manfredo Tancredo IV Is Sorry, But Not..
Manfredo Tancredo IV writes:

"Mrs. V I am so sorry you thought I was making a vulgar joke"

No you're not.

Anyone looking at all the other spew you placed underneath the above comment, directed at me, would have to agree..

You may be sorry, but you're not..


stranger to truth pt II
My keyboard acted up (the HP DV-8000 is a wonderful laptop but the keyboard is crap, sad to say.)

Btw, when your next door neighbor "marries" his Labrador retriever, it'll be none of your business,too.

Then again, it's none of your business whether or not I wear a seatbelt, yet there's that pesky little law. It's none of your business which side of the road I choose to drive on... those annoying, interfering laws people pass to force people to conform to norms of behavior be darned!

"When you make stalker sorts of comments, don't be surprised if people treat you like a stalker."

I'll bear that in mind if-and-when I ever make stalker sorts of comments.

"Get help, while you are at it. If anybody saying things like you have said approaches and bothers me, I'm calling the police."

I'm not the one who needs help; I didn't find it necessary to mutilate my body to attempt to resolve some identity issue.
Please do call the police, because they can always use a good laugh as they tell you, "sorry, suggesting that a pervert needs mental help isn't considered stalking, any more than expressing one's political or social views in public."

You are one sad individual, and if you keep trying to publicly assert that I have in any way threatened or "stalked" you, I shall petition the Townhall management for your removal for harassment. There are countless witnesses to every word I've posted on Townhall, as well as archives, I'm sure.

stranger to truth
"When you claim that you have a "right" to object or somehow interfere in my marriage (which you did yesterday), then I assume you mean it."

Quote me, I dare you. I never said any such thing.

What I said was, (from memory) when you try to change my society, that makes it my business.

"I have no real idea just how you intend to do that, but the fact you actually believe that MY MARRIAGE is YOUR BUSINESS is creepy enough."

Your marriage is of no interest to me. If you didn't marry an adult member of the opposite sex, then it's not a marriage. But if you attempt to change the culture so that anything other than a monogamous, lifetime heterosexual relationship is included under the definition of marriage, then it's my business, because you're trying to change my culture to do so. How do I intend to prevent you from changing my culture, which is what I actually said? The same way you try to change it; by speaking out against it, by petitioning my government, by voting for appropriate representatives. It's your twisted, paranoid little mind that tried to make people think I was somehow threatening you personally.

"How about you keep your strange little "pervert" mutterings all to your strange little "pervert" self, and I'll not bother to address you again."

I've not muttered, and I'm not the pervert here. Either you are delusional (which has become obvious) or you are a garden-variety liar.

Btw, when your next door neighbor marries his labrador

my 2 cents
> then let's test ALL the soldiers in our forces for AIDS and then respond consistently, not selectively by discharging ONLY gay soldiers

Actually, soliders are tested regularly for AIDS, and have been since 1984. Have this illness makes one unqualifed for military service for a number of reason, all pragmatic

>. As a married man a soldier may believe that adultery is ok. .... But the military has designated acting on such impulses as being unallowable.

Not true. by regulation, it only becomes actionable if it violates the good order of the unit. So you cant sleep with your commanders wife, but you can bang some hoe in the trailer court off post.

One thing is people are all worried about men hitting on men, but women seem to handle being hit on by men. If its not welcome, there are sexual harrasment laws in place to handle it. Heck, in the field, the women and men bunk together, no problem....disciple is part of it, and thats what the army is know for, so from this perspective, I dont see what the issue is at all.

slacker
I have to confess I was referring to one specific sentence in one of your posts. The question you pose is a conundrum since they will find out when the partner tries to get medical benefits. This will require action by the military member essentially outing himself. This creates a problem with civil unions, which I am, surprisingly, for. I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but that gay couples are not second class citizens when it comes to rights that heteros enjoy. The military is, by necessity, different, and will stay that way. I also agree that most people under 30 don't care or are liberal-leaning. I would say that they are unaware of the world around them and the issues facing them. They have been raised in a cocoon from kindergarten through college. They are no longer asked to make choices on what kind of persons they are; as long as they are "cool" about stuff, moral relativism can rule. Maybe this is a question that should be asked only of mature people that actually read about the issues, not parrot back whatever Leo DiCaprio and others say. If I misconstrued or distorted your comments I am truly sorry.

CVN65 you and I are pretty much ...
... in agreement. I never said Pace is trying to change any rules - including dont ask dont tell - or that the military can't regulate the behavior of its troops. I have explicitly said the military has rights to exclude sexual behavior, either hetero- or homosexual between soldiers, and particularly if they are in the same "unit". Many corporations have similar rules. If John and Sue work in the same department and get married, they will transfer one of them and ensure that neither supervises the other.

I did say that I don't agree that homosexuality is in itself immoral. I also don't agree with any arguments that in the absence of sexual behavior knowledge that another soldier has a same sex preference is disruptive. It is quite likely that eventually the military will liberalize their current policy since sexual orientation of others is quickly becoming a non-issue for the vast majority of potential recruits under the age of 30.

Finally, I pointed out that the gradual adoption of some states like Mass. and NJ to allow same sex marriage and civil unions essentially undoes don't ask, don't tell.

Imagine, John and Bill get married in Mass. John is a "manly" gay man and joins the marines. Or maybe he is already in the marines when they get married. The marines ask John if he is married, or single. He says married. He can't check the "single" box on the form without lying. They ask who he is married to...

... oops, they've just violated don't ask, don't tell. If he answers the question he will be "openly gay".

So, where are we? The military must now stop asking if troops have spouses? They must toss John out of the marines if he answers their question truthfully? I don't think so. Next step will be when John wants to bring his spouse into housing on a base for married troops or officers. What to do then?

Its just silly, since as I say, most people under 30 just don't care.

Mr.morality writes:
"So is homosexuality NOT immoral in Massachusetts becuase the majority thinks that? But homosexuality IS immoral in Texas cause the majority thinks that? There is not ONE society crackhead, there are many."

What is really odd about your argument Mr. Morality (ha) is that in this debate you're taking the micro view. I'd be willing to bet that if the topic were changed to let's say, globalism, you would instantly take the macro approach. So let's really dive into your logic, as well as Bob's, Reaganfan and Patsguy.

You are suggesting that what happens in Massachusetts is representative of society. Hmmmm, some places they practised cannabilism until the early 80's. Heck it might still be going on for all one really knows. Does this make it okay to cannabalize just because one small segment of society practices it.

Soceity is a representation of the collective whole. Occasionally there are bad laws or customs introduced but time usually eliminates those laws or customs that are of no benefit, or negatively impact said societies. Are you still with me there Mr. Frootloops?

Taking that into consideration. Will you rule out the 98% of americans who are demanding the protect marriage amendment. Are you going to rule out the rest of the world, perhaps the 1.6 billion muslim's where homosexuality is a capital punishment, or how about red china where convicted homosexuals are taken from the courtroom directly to the back alley where a 7mm projectile enters the back of their head and their families get billed for the bullet.

Society and thousands of years of cultural belief systems have made homosexuality and the practice of homosexuality immoral. Don't think for a minute that just because you and the rest of the gay activist cadre want it's practive widely adopted that there are people out there who will alter their views to support the microscopic segment of "society" who wills it.

Wake up.....


antiteenmommas
"General Pace should be forced to volunteer his time..." It is not volunteering if you are forced, Einstein. And once again, he must be a hater if he does not condone, no, champion the gay lifestyle, right? If he doesn't agree with you and beg forgiveness, he is a hater and worthy of your vitriol, right? Is that promoting diversity of thought? Or do you libs not mean it to include us, only those that look differently but sound just like yourselves?

slacker
General Pace is not instituting rules against specific behaviors; they already exist. The UCMJ is much more stringent than any civilian counterpart. Whether you agree or disagree with him does not change the facts. He is allowed to believe as he wishes and is allowed to express his personal opinions publicly. What he is not allowed to do is to let these opinions color his public service. Again, nobody is talking about removing gays and lesbians from the service. This is not based in homophobia. Young enlisted members may have a problem being in a foxhole with an openly gay man but they do not make up the rules. The highest level officers do and, if you refer to my post above, I explain quite clearly that it is an issue of good order and discipline, not homophobia. Any troops on the front lines engaging in sexual activity will have an extremely detrimental effect on their units' morale. Sorry, but when you sign up and take the money, Uncle Sam OWNS you. Military personnel understand this, why can't civilians? The military is there to PROTECT democracy not PRACTICE it.

CaballeroKid
"Why haven't wee seen the ramifications of it? Because it's only been in play for a very short time. Give it ten years when children grow up with two mothers/fathers and we will start to the see the social implications."


Amazing!! Kids who are brought up to not beat up "wussies" and who respect differences. The horror! Real American kids should know that sissies, faggots and different kids have to beaten up and intimidated to make sure they know their place. It's the real American way.

The real slanderers and name callers...
Its interesting to see that most of the name calling and slandering is on the KMC side. It starts with him using terms like "girly men" and "manly women" in order to get the discussion down to gutter language immediately. That seems to be where most of his supporters seem most comfortable.

Its also interesting that in spite of all the claims that "liberals" are bashing Pace, and the call to his defense by KMC, there are actually very few posts by those opposed to KMC's point of view that demean or bash him. If KMC and his supporters want to see slandering and name calling they should start by looking in the mirror.

I certainly haven't bashed Pace or called him names, even though I said I completely disagree with his position on the "morality" of homosexuality. He's entitled to his opinion. I am entitled to disagree and say so publicly as well.

As I said before, his private opinion really doesn't matter for a variety of reasons I gave yesterday. Gays and lesbians already serve in the military today. The toothpaste is out of the tube and there is no putting it back in. Pace isn't going to get rid of them no matter how immoral he thinks their behavior is, and I doubt he will even try.

He can impose military regulations against open expression of sexuality. He can argue against further liberalization of "don't ask, don't tell." But in the long run I suspect even he knows he will lose this argument.

Its obvious why fighting against this inevitable liberalization is important to those on the losing side. The military can have a profound influence on social trends. If I remember my history correctly the military was one of the very first large American institutions to disavow segregation and actively integrate itself, and it did so in the very earliest phase of the civil rights movement. I am quite sure that some officers and enlisted men in the military and people outside the military at the time opposed this policy with arguments similar to those used by KMC and his supporters against gays.

OK People
This is for everyone, those who carefully read KMC's column, and those who did not. As anyone who actually served in the Armed Forces can tell you, you give up your rights when you sign on the dotted line. KMC clearly stated that, as a military member, you cannot be openly gay nor can you cheat on your spouse (with a boy or a girl). Both of these are considered immoral acts. Cheating on my wife could have resulted in any number of punishments as defined by the UCMJ. Now, we all know that there is a difference between the official policy and how things really work. Noone is persecuting gays or philanderers the last I checked; it didn't happen on my ship or in port. Now, people did get in trouble during OIF when people hooked up in the bunkers, but no differentiation was made between gay/straight or married/single; it was all prohibited. The point is this: if people are engaging in sexual congress with others in their squads, many problems will arise. This is why the DOD wants NO SEX at all; in front-line troops, all are men, therefore the need to ban homosexual ACTIVITY. The current law allows gays to serve but they have to keep it under wraps, to carefully monitor their activity, as do the heterosexuals. It is not based on homophobia but on military order and discipline. A gay military member that does what they want, off-base and on their own time will not be in any trouble. If there was a pogrom against the gays, all of those gay bars near military bases would be regularly raided by MPs; they are not raided regularly and no pogrom exists. Sorry to ruin thr liberals day. A little common sense and experience will do them good.

Good post, RAD Dad
Very good post.

I agree with this article. Disagreeing with one's lifestyle is not hate. Except where Christians are involved. Anytime a Christian disagrees with anything it's hate.

But years ago during Clinton's impeachment hearings, actor Alec Baldwin called for the KILLING of Rep. Henry Hyde, who was leading the investigation. Was this hate? Any reasonably normal person would think so. But where was the outrage? Where was the finger pointing of obvious hatred towards someone?

Freshman students in Illinois were made to take a class at school stating that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle, but they WERE NOT to tell their parents about this class. Anyone see a blatant usurping of parental rights here? If these same kids were taken to a class stating the Christian foundations of our country, there would be an outcry heard from New York to California!

We have a great example of the double standard in our news right now. Liberals are screaming for the resignation of Atty. General Gonzalez over the firing of 8 US attorneys. Yet Bill Clinton fired over 90!!! Excuse me?!?!??!?!?!?

AIDS is a federally protected disease. If I have HIV I can hide it from my employer, even my spouse and children. No one has to know I have this contagious disease. But if I have TB, I am taken away immediately and quarantined.

Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard. Double standard.

Mr. Morality, Thanks
for your 7:44 AM post. Made me laugh. This discussion needed a bit of levity.

Its interesting to see that most of the name calling and slandering is on the KMC side and started by him (using terms like "girly men" and "manly women" in order to get the discussion down to gutter language where most of his supporters seem most comfortable).

In fact its also interesting that in spite of all the claims that "liberals" are bashing Pace and the call to rush to his defense initiated by KMC there are actually very few posts by those opposed to KMC's point of view that even mention Pace, much less demean or bash him. If KMC and his supporters want to see slandering and name calling they should start by looking in the mirror.

I certainly haven't bashed Pace or called him names, even though I said I completely disagree with his position on the "morality" of homosexuality. He's entitled to his private opinion. People who ask him to express it honestly in a public setting shouldn't be surprised if they get an honest answer.

As I said before, his private opinion really doesn't matter for a variety of reasons I gave yesterday. Gays and lesbians already serve in the military today. The toothpaste is out of the tube and there is no putting it back in. Pace isn't going to get rid of them no matter how immoral he thinks their behavior is, and I doubt he will even try.

He can impose military regulations against open expression of sexuality. He can argue against further liberalization of "don't ask, don't tell." But in the long run I suspect even he knows he will lose this argument.

Its obvious why fighting against this inevitabile liberalization is important to those on the losing side. The military can have a profound influence on social trends. If I remember my history correctly the military was one of the very first large American institutions to disavow segregation and actively integrate itself, and it did so in the very earliest phase of the civil rights movement. I am quite sure that some officers and enlisted men in the military and people outside the military at the time opposed this policy with arguments similar to those used by KMC and his supporters against gays.

Mr. Morality
Well god bless science for now being our determing factor of what is moral. Scientific study is absolutely incorruptable, right? I'm going to take a gander and would appreciate your honest answer, Mr. Morality...I'm going to guess that you are not religious or believe in a Supreme Being, correct? If your argument is that science has proven that homosexuality provides society all sorts of benefit then you are standing on very faulty ground.

Your assumption that conservative values include slavery, interracial marriage and women's suffrage is absolutely wrong. Slave owners can speak for themselves as to what they considered moral/immoral but my source of morality as a conservative NEVER have included that. Might I also add that it was the Republican party that fought for ending slavery in opposition to the Democrats.

Likewise, women's suffrage was not privy to any liberal or conservative train of thought, so don't claim it to be.

JudeoChristian tenets of societal morality do not change. Why don't you tell when the last ten commandment was changed? Show me where ALL Christian thought endorses slavery? In other words, don't tell me that there were Christian slave owners in the south, because I would once again argue that if one man owns another, they are not Christian as they claim.



Brian and Bob
Brian, if your argument of homosexuality being moral or even justified is based on the fact that homosexual dogs and monkeys indulge in the act then you are standing on very shifty ground. Are you telling us that humans should participate or approve of homosexuality because animals do it? It is also a fact that canines eat their feces at opportune moments so should humans indulge/approve of that as well?

Debasing homosexual ideology to align yourselves at the same level of beasts and animals does not serve you at all, but if you insist then I will accept your point. Should I then treat you as such? Then you would really have something to scream about. General Pace's and my conservative values put us well above the animals in logic and behavior. Most animals are heterosexual, but I would never use that as an argument to try and support my position.

Bob, your argument that homosexuality is moral in Massachusetts because government voted it in ia also missing the point. Just because our liberal government would like us to believe that morality serves no purpose in government because it's relative does not override my steadfast, unchanging morality derived from several thousand year old JudeoChristian standards of morality. If drugs and prostitution were legalized (like in some countries) does that mean it is no longer immoral??? Are you trying to tell us that incest and molestation is only immoral because government has laws against it???

Secondly, Massachusetts never had a public vote on the issue. Governor Romney wanted a public vote because he knew that if left to the people (not the left wing, liberal, gay agenda interested politicians) that initiative would have fallen to the public vote. Why haven't wee seen the ramifications of it? Because it's only been in play for a very short time. Give it ten years when children grow up with two mothers/fathers and we will start to the see the social implications.

"Good old conservative values"
Caballerokid seems to think that morality does not change. It used to be considered moral to own slaves. It used to be considered moral to deny woman the right to vote. Inter racial marriage was once considered immoral. These notions used to be "good old conservative values". But with time and enlightenment, these moral views changed in society. Morality changed, live with it. Some moral views do not change--murder will always be wrong. Some moral views--that black people are inferior for instance--DO CHANGE. Because of new scientific understandings of the origins/meanings of human sexuality, the moral view of homosexuality is also changing. Get used to it.

Thanks Bob, Reaganfan, Patsguy!
Hey guys--thanks for your posts--Waywuss is a total crackhead as you can see by his posts!

So many of you liberals are
attacking General Pace because of his personal opinion expressed as a military leader, but have you ever asked how he got there in the first place? Pace is a four star general BECAUSE of the morals and fortitude that make him the honorable MAN he is. It is people with values like General Pace that make our military great. He is unwavering in that moral fortitude because morality is not a changing relevance that is only applicable to every individual's whim. You see for General Pace, there is a universal right and a wrong, a universal good and bad, an unchanging righteous and evil although liberals would like us all to think that times change and so should morality. Could I dare even venture to say that General Pace is probably a Christian??? How dare I assume that, but I just find it stereotypically interesting how General Pace's unwavering moral views tend to align with good old conservative values and the average liberal aligns themselves with good old San Francisco "treat" morality.

As for gay people in the military, they knew going into service that homosexuality is a lifestyle that is frowned upon. They joined for different reasons knowing well that they should not be asked and not tell. They chose to serve our country for more important reasons than their sexual preference. God bless them for serving our country and for realizing that sexual preference is not the ONLY aspect that defines a human.

Wayward the crackhead
So is homosexuality NOT immoral in Massachusetts becuase the majority thinks that? But homosexuality IS immoral in Texas cause the majority thinks that? There is not ONE society crackhead, there are many.

Go ahead and say that homosexuality is immoral, but saying that that is due to the opinion of the "vast majority" is ridiculous--"the majority of society defines morality" does not mean that their decisions are correct--a majority of Germans elected Hitler.

Brian, the Pats guy, and I agree--you are an idiot waywuss

Reaganfan wrote:
"Just because a majority considers something immoral does not make it so, be it "lifestyle choice" or "profound cultural change"."

Hate to break it to ya pal but society, the majority of society, defines morality. Have you ever wondered how or why we institute laws? not to suggest that all laws are perfect or even moral. But in general they are introduced as a benefit.

Who is smoking crack?

Real men are torch bearers
When real men enter a forum with the truth, they shed light on the darkness in the opposing viewpoint. Those with the darkness in their heart must at all cost shut that light out by any means necessary. Call the real man a bigot, a fanatic, a liar...whatever it takes, so that no one will have to deal with the truth. Pace was making a stand on immorality, not just on homosexuality, but he was shedding light and that light must be extinguished by those who support immorality by supporting situational ethics.

Wayward1 really is a crackhead
The only nutjob I see in the wayward debate is wayard who has trouble following logic it appears.

Wayward's previous point was that homosexuality is immoral because a "vast majority" thinks so. This is an insane argument which Brian and the Pats guy rightfully pointed out.

Just because a majority considers something immoral does not make it so, be it "lifestyle choice" or "profound cultural change". And is homosexuality NOT immoral in Massachusetts and countries that allow gay marriage? In places that do not have a "vast majority" thinking homosexuality is immoral, then by wayward's twisted logic, it must not be.

Put down your crackpipe and THINK for once before you type away waywuss.

Patwussy writes:
"A "vast majority" once thought women having the right to vote was immoral--history proved them wrong. Something is immoral cause alot of people think so is just a BRILLIANT argument!!!"

Typical slanted argument. Take a position of profound cultural change and then try and introduce a lifestyle "choice" as a suitable comparison.

What a nutjob....

To RXlady
I THINK "Ihatefags" was a satirical comment designed to show the stupidity of many arguments made by social conservatives to justify the belief that homosexuality is immoral--a spoof in other words...I think so at least cause otherwise this post wins for most pathetic posting on here.

And I do think KMC was picking out one "sin" and "winking at others". He was "winking" at such Biblical rules saying eating shrimp is a sin, that if you rape a woman, you have to buy her from her father, that if you swear at your parents, you should be executed, etc....in other words, KMC and many other "Christians" seem hellbent on focusing on what the Bible says about homosexuality and then TOTALLY ignoring what the Bible has to say about other matters. It is what I have never understood about people--like you dear--who point to the Bible to say homosexuality is immoral, but you are mysteriously quiet on many other things the Bible says is immoral. Have you ever worn an outfit made of 2 different materials, RXlady? The bible says that's a sin--Leviticus--the same section you use to condemn gays in fact--says it is a sin...but you ignore that rule, don't you? You wink just like the rest of them sweetie.

jump on the bandwagon there patsfan
Try reading waht I wrote before you make ridiculous comments.

If homosexuality was the norm then 89% of the public wouldn't be demanding to enact protect marriage laws. It is the minority yet people like you and Brian use lies to try and prove idiotic points. The question reamins, is homosexuality immoral and does it's practive benefit society.

Concerning the "act" in nature. There are loads of films available if you do your proper research instead of blindly following the chosen agenda of some amoral activist, which clearly shows what happens in the animal kingdon, one in particular, shows a group of dogs killing one of the deviant ones.

I saw that at University of Maryland before it was lobotomized by the marxist left.

See?
Mr. McCullough was right; liberals really CAN'T get their brains around morality; just witness the number of girlie-men who've chimed in here, so far! Grow a pair, for Pete's sake!

Is wayward1 on crack?
"If a vast majority did'nt think homosexuality was wrong the homosexuality rate would exceed 50%" Wayward1 writes...WHAT???

Is the "homosexuality rate" in Massachusetts suddenly above 50%? Not the last time I checked. I remember people warning about the DISASTERS that would happen in Massachusetts if gay marriage became legal---I'm still waiting and ya know massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

And "gay animals are killed in nature"? That's a new one to me, crackhead-Wayward.

I've read brian's points, and you don't come close to refuting his points you idiot. His point about the stupidity of your belief that if a "vast majority" thinks something is immoral, then it is immoral without question is right on. A "vast majority" once thought women having the right to vote was immoral--history proved them wrong. Something is immoral cause alot of people think so is just a BRILLIANT argument!!!

Put down the crackpipe, Waywussy



Dear ihatefags...
Listen, it's one thing to point out something in the Bible, and another to make nasty statements.

Saying nasty things about homosexuals accomplishes nothing.

Your statements are also ridiculous and illogical.


Howdy, hang-tyme...
Yes, I agree that sin is sin. Sin is our fallen state before God, missing the "bulls-eye" of God's standard. Sin is the things we do (commission) and the things we don't do (ommission). Sin is thoughts, actions, and inactions. Romans chapter 7 talks about this.

Every one of us needs a savior. Some recgonize that need, others don't. God doesn't comdemn some sins and not others. All sin makes us fall short.

I don't think KMC is picking out one sin and "winking" at others. No one who is serious about following Christ is doing that either.

God isn't going to ask about whether we are liberal or conservative...but rather, have we accepted what Jesus did for us on the cross and repented of our wretched state of sin.

Repentance is an ongoing thing for the Christian (me included).

In the example of McGreevy, it would seem that he's not really that sorry about the damage he caused to his family.

The "judge not" passage in the Bible is a favorite of those who want a free pass to do as they please. And they want others not to "call a spade a spade." People talk about "tolerance" to mean that "I can do what I want and no one can tell me otherwise."

When a Christian points out something in the Bible, he is called an "intolerant bigot."

Yes, Jesus said, "don't try to remove the speck from your brother's eye until you've removed the plank from your own eye."

The reason that many Christians talk about abortion and homosexual acts so much is that these 2 particular issues are so deep, and say a lot about human nature. Abortion on demand as the ultimate expression of selfishness and sex with "whomever you want" (homo or hetero) outside the bonds of holy matrimony as another form of great selfishness.

Jesus said that a person who wants to follow Him must "deny himself and take up his cross." That doesn't mean that we have to live in a mud hut as a hermit, but that we must want to live a life that is pleasing to Him.

Fags are immoral--it's a fact
i'm a conservative republican and the main reasons homosexuality is immoral are the following:
1) the Bible says so and I follow EVERYTHING the Bible says.

2) ALL gay people have AIDS, those who say they do not are lying.

3) ALL gay people are child molesters, those who say they are not are lying.

4) only gay people have disgusting habits like being promiscuous, being drug users and being alcoholics.

5) homosexuality being wrong is a tradition and tradtions never change--like slavery, women not being allowed to vote, etc.

6) when the British and Israeli armies allowed gays to serve openly, all hell broke loose and the fags infected all of the straight troops with AIDS.

7) only gay people become mentally ill and only gay people engage in polygamy.

8) only gay people are liars and cheaters

10) all gay animals end up eaten by the hetero animals very quickly because the straight animals realise how immoral the gay animals are.

Case closed.

Gen Pace is a good guy
who says what he thinks. I don't think that's a bad thing.

In this country, he has a right to be wrong, like we all do. Those who capitulate to Political Correctness are the weak ones.

Letsallrelax...
I've heard that comparison before...followers of Christ analogous to the Taliban...boy, that's a big leap...


brian wirtes:
"Thankyou Wayward1 for illustrating how PATHETIC the arguments saying homosexuality is immoral are. Is this the best you can come up with? You proved my point, idiot."

Exactly what point did you prove other than showing what most already know of the liberal mindset, that being to run off in some rhetorical temper tamptrum.

Okay brian, here goes. Sorry I can't put this in form of a colering book for you so bear with me. If a vast majority didn't think homosexuality was immoral then the homosexual rate would exceed 50%, and there wouldn't be centuries of data that warns us of it's perils left unchecked. You mentioned to another poster about it occurances in nature. How about telling the truth about what happens in nature Brian instead of repeating the same lie over and over and over and over..."it is not accepted in nature, the deviant animal if often killed, and that Brian is FACT.

If you wish to get back to topic then we can do so but don't even try and resort to lies to prove your weak minded points. It takes courage to stand up for what is right for society, and dismissing selfish impulses.

But the "bong" down for once.


Pace's views are in line with DA,DT
Pace gave one reason in support of the current policy -- his own, personal opinion that homosexual acts are immoral. So why is he being excoriated for offering one opinion that is in support of the current policy? People have a right to personally condemn anything they want to as immoral, and a career military man should be well-within his rights to offer such an opnion, particularly one that is in support of the current policy, without childish accusations of being "hate-filled." Regardless, people also have a right (or should have a right, in a free society) to hate anything or anyone they choose to as long as their actions don't violate the law or infringe on another person's freedoms. For example, I hate people who commit willful acts of violence. I don't merely hate the sin, I also hate the sinner. Other people hate homosexuals. To all you Lefties who think "hate," even against homosexuals, is the worst sin someone can commit, I say, too bad! And grow up past your intellectual stagnation at kindergarten level where you think the government, like the teacher, can force everyone to love each other and share their milk and cookies.

Charlie
Writes:

'By the reaction of half the posters, McCullough must have hit a nerve. All the girly men came out of hiding to defend their inadequacies.'

Several others have made comments along the same lines noting how such a column bring the gays out of the woodwork ranting and raving. Insecurity?

It's amazing the argument its defenders use: anyone who opposes the gay lifestyle on moral and religious grounds is a bigot, homophobe, etc. (they've got several demeaning names). Recently, the super gay Elton John went so far as suggesting that religion be banned. But, of course, they must not be considered bigoted in spewing their vitriolic and bilious defenses.

In other words, their detractors have no right to the public expression of their opinions. As a matter of fact, the liberal thought police have made it a crime in some countries and punishable 'hate' speech on most campuses in this country.

Despite all this, gays and their life style is still opposed albeit tolerated by the overwhelming majority of this country's population.

However, given this norm, militarily, gays present a very significant impediment to the effort to develop unit cohesion which is very necessary to enhancing any unit's fighting strength, particularly those of the infantry.

The current super popular movie of the moment is '300', the story of the Spartans et al at Thermopolye. The fact is that the homo/gay lifestyle was an accepted norm of Spartan society, and a required fact in most if not all Spartan military units. Given the crude weapons of the day, men were purposely paired because these were the strongest defensive formations i.e. back to back. In battle, one hardly ever fell alone - they went together.

These were ancient pre-Christian societies unaware of the Hebrew Bible's teachings. Through subsequent centuries, civilization learned the benefits and costs of many cultural practices. The homosexual lifestyle, for one thing, neglects the procreation that maintains the vitality and strength necessary for a society's continuation. In it's absence, that society will die as in the cases of both Greece and Rome.

The gay lifestyle has little to defend itself other than personal appetite, excess and indulgence. That's why it's first defense is always the personal attack - and usually this from those who incessantly preach tolerance.

Strange how homosexuals forget....
all the other stuff which comes with being homosexual, stuff like lying, infidelity, polygamy, mental illness and last but not least excessive & prolific alcohol & drug abuse.

Even lesbo icon Rosie Odonnel recently admitted to being "depressed" (a form of mental illness) and she takes drugs for her "depression", she admitted being depressed since the Columbine killings, something that occurred 8 years ago & didn't have anything to do with her and was totally out of her control.

To say homosexual behavior is "moral" ignores reality and the definition of "moral" unless your idea of moral behavior is drunken filandering, lying & cheating like a dog or monkey-whom of course have no morals.

Animals don't have morals, that is what distinguishes mankind from animals although many homosexuals would probably not see a difference between mankind and animals, they see man as just an animal with a high IQ and many prefer the company of animals over humans, humans can so be judgemental and most expect moral behavior.


Why Can't They Just Get Over It?
LR and Manfredo seem to also be asking this question. Reminds me of my elderly neighbor who
tells me the same story three times a day, seven days a week! Without making the big statement here about goody or baddy bos an gals, enough already!!!!!!!!!!!
Your fellow worker tells you he has an inter racial marriage. OK. Do you want to hear about it 6 times a day. How bout I'M an illegitimate child 8 times a day? I am a freshman at UCLA
5 times a day and wear only the colors and letter
for 4 years! DON'T ASK IS GREAT BUT THEY ARE GOING TO ANNOUNCE IT OVER THE P.A. SYSTEM AND SHOW YOU A VIDEO EVERY HALF HOUR ANYWAY: Hell
people there aint no place to hide from this
unsolicited bragging. They are the ones who havn't adjusted.
telling and showing!

Mrs. V.
Given the profound level of your confusion and our previous exercises in talking past each other rather than engaging in real conversation, I do not think there is any chance I will ever convince you anything I have to say is of value.

It has value, though because on the general direction and arc of history on this issue I am correct, whether you agree the outcome I confidently predict is "moral" or not. I understand that you think that, believe me. However I am convinced you are on the wrong side of history. That's my main point, along with consoling you that it ain't going to be as bad as you and KMC think when you lose this social argument.

Given the current attitude of the under 30 generation regarding homosexuality there is little chance of don't ask don't tell being repealed. Neither will gays and lesbians be prevented from serving in the military if they want to and are willing to abide by that policy because the military needs all the volunteers it can get. It is unlikely to do anything to diminish the supply of potential recruits.

As I said, the nose of the camel is under the tent with "don't ask, don't tell" and the direction of society in general is toward more tolerance of homosexuality not less. The military will necessarily be affected by this trend and will become more tolerant, not less, over time.

You may see this as some kind of "triumph" of a homosexual "agenda" but I don't. I am sure there are plenty of activist gays and lesbians who promote this as part of some social "agenda". Fine, but they can promote it all they want and it would go nowhere unless there was support for their position in the general population. My prediction of a gradual liberalization of military policy toward gays and lesbians is common sense and based on an understanding of existing social trends.

There are two other forks in the road where you and I part company as well.

For one thing, I don't accept the bible as the unerring word of god, so your arguments based on that position do nothing to convince me of anything. That doesn't mean that I don't think there are important "truths" in the bible, nor do I have any problem with you taking the bible, as you myopically understand it, as literal truth hook line and sinker. I am just saying the bible does not convince me that there is anything immoral about homosexual behavior.

I also do not share your concern that tolerating homosexual behavior in our society will somehow lead homosexuals to "recruit" unwitting heterosexuals to their orientation or life style. That may be a big concern that you and KMC may share, but it is baseless. I have known a lot of people in my life, but I have never known any straight person to be enticed to experiment with homosexuality or the gay life style by "gay propaganda".

There are people who have a tendency toward homosexuality, but have been convinced by foolish parents or authority figures that there is something "wrong" with expressing their own nature that can lead to their "eternal damnation". They can become obsessed with fear and often do everything they can to "prove" to the world they are "normal." They are driven by their fear of what they feel and see in themselves. Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature knows fear breeds hatred and anger.

When internalized and hidden, this fear of one of our most fundamental natural drives leads to self loathing and very dark and obsessive behavior. You may not agree with me, but I am sure it underlies the parade of gay bashing preachers like Ted Haggard and his ilk that we constantly see exposed. Whether KMC fits into this mold or not I do not claim to know. But the pattern is obvious. In any case KMC could care less what my opinion is of him I am sure.

Secondly, your agument that you and others like you have nothing against homosexuals, that you just dislike and want to stop their private behavior, which you in your moral certainty believe is destructive, is irrelevant. If you re-read my original post, you will see that I have no problem with disallowing sexual behavior, whether hetero- or homosexual in the military. In the business world it has no place and would get me fired from the place where I work. The military has every right to disallow public sexual behavior between on-duty troops as well.

This does not however, extend to give my employer or the military a right to assert who someone can choose as a life partner.

If that makes me an appologist for some gay agenda in your mind, there is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. In reality, to any thoughful individual, it just makes me "fair, balanced," and wise.

R.A.D. Dad--not impressed
No kidding that many religions have been anti-gay over the years--we are only now understanding that homosexuality is a NORMAL biological occurence found in hundreds, if not thousands of animal speices. Christianity, Buddhism, and other religions are in the midst of grappling with the issue of homosexuality in light of our new scientific understanding of the biological origins of sexuality. Saying that various religions are against homosexuality is very vague and misleading....and various religions have changed opinions on issues before--on slavery, women's rights, the sun revolving around the earth...religions historically change positions as more information becomes available. The Dalai Lama has changed his view on homosexuality over the years as he became more knowledgable about the biological origns of homosexuality, his views have become ACCEPTING of homosexuality in fact.

RAD mentions his natural "gut instinct" against homosexuality--that does'nt cut it. Did it ever occur to him that gay people were born with a "gut instinct" against heterosexuality?

And the life expectancy of all gay people is NOT markedly different from the hetero population. Promiscuity is more often found with men than with women and there are many "hetero" men who have sex with gay men on the side--promiscuity is a male thing, not a gay thing.

How pathetic of RAD DAD to say acceptance of NAMBLA is likely to come next. I know of zero gay citizens who support NAMBLA or the victimization of children. RAD DAD displays his ignorance and hate by linking gay people to child molesters.

So its come to this--the argument against homosexuality boils down to a bigot's "gut instinct". Give me a break.

Homosexuality is deviant
Immoral :
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

Homosexuality has always been regarding as immoral in almost every society throughout the world and history. Traditional Buddhism presents homosexuality as forbidden. Hinduism presents homosexuality as forbidden. Judaism forbids homosexuality, Christianity forbids homosexuality, and Islam forbids homosexuality.

Homosexuality is deviant, abnormal, unnatural.
The sexes were clearly designed to yearn for the opposite, falling out of that norm is by definition deviant. Were the entire species to become homosexual, and then follow only those desires, the race would die out. This is why it is against nature, as the natural purpose of sexual desire is to promote reproduction. That we do it for fun is besides the point of it's natural design and intent.

Most societies view sex outside of marriage as immoral. That immorality is widly practiced does not change the fact that it is not meeting the moral ideal. Because there NEVER EVER has been a provision for same sex marriage in ANY society prior to the 20th century, that would make homosexual acts immoral on their face.

(a brief aside on "gay marriage". Even the Spartans, who were known for having an accepting attitude towards gay sex forbid gay marriage, and in fact REQUIRED all men to take a wife. Of course the men and the women were oft segregated, and gay relationships went on, but even the Spartans recognized that the survival of their civilization relied on the traditional family unit being maintained and upheld, you strive for the ideal even if you don't attain it, you strive for it.)

Anal sex, both between a man and a man, or a man and a woman is unhealthy and can be dangerous. AIDS is rampant in Africa's heterosexual population due largely to a combination high levels of promiscuity as well as anal sex between male and female being far more common than in most Western cultures. Despite those of you who are shouting that all gay men don't have anal sex, MOST gay men do. It is part of the lifestyle. Those that do avoid anal sex often do so because even with a condom it is ALWAYS risky. (this is true of man on man or man on woman anal sex. Of course in an ideal heterosexual relationship where each has only been with the other the chances of spreading any sexually transmitted disease are about zero, but there is still the risk of rupture, infection, hemorrhoids)

Lesbians by the way have a far higher rate of cervical cancer, oral sex woman to woman (or with a man) can raise the likely hood of various infections, from yeast infections to UTI's. Lesbians do tend to be less promiscuous than homosexual men, AND heterosexual men, but are still far more promiscuous than heterosexual females.

For homosexual males and females, sexual activity tends (as a group, not for EVERY individual) to be a more defining aspect of their life than it does for heterosexuals.

Homosexuals as a demographic have shorter lifespans despite the fact that they, as a demographic, tend to be higher educated, have higher paying jobs, and in most other ways have demographic indicators that would point towards facilitating longer lifespans, not shorter. This demographically demonstrable shorter lifespan goes back BEFORE AIDS, and has only shortened further SINCE AIDS. Even before AIDS homosexuals where far more likely to suffer from all forms of STDS and Hepatitis C.

Homosexuals tend to be far, far, more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Whether homosexuality is a natural(genetic) phenomenon or not is irrelevant to it's being moral, immoral or amoral. Should they prove tomorrow that the reason pedophiles are virtually impossible to reform is because pedophilia is a genetic predisposition would that suddenly make pedophilia normal or moral? Alcoholism has a proven genetic component, but that doesn't make being a drunk moral, nor driving drunk acceptable.

Of course Homosexuals don't have a corner on immorality, but the reason conservatives seem to be so obsessed with it is because of the forcible attempt to normalize this destructive and immoral behavior. There is an almost militant movement to get a homosexual agenda in our schools. But really, homosexuality is only one front on the war against values in this society. Pornography is rampant, the age at which young people are becoming sexually active is getting lower and lower, are young people are being exposed to sex everywhere it seems.

Morality is being forcibly rewritten in society by those who are looking to free themselves of all moral constraints. Those who hold to morals are vilified and ridiculed. If you have not retrained your conscience and natural gut instinct that rejects homosexuality you are labeled a hater, a homophobe and so on.

I fear for what is next on the list of immoral behaviors to get the militant nod of normalization from those who want to destroy all traditional values and morals. NAMBLA would be happy to be next on the list.


OH, and to those who address the notion that male on female abuse in the military is a larger problem than homosexuality....well DUH! Those opposed to the mixing of men and women in the military, and of women in combat stated just that as a concern. There's a reason for centuries all men and women were essentially segregated in the military and the roles of women were therefore quite limited.

Finally a bit of disclosure, I used to frequent with those in the homosexual community, had a roommate who was himself a homosexual. My friends well knew my position on the morality of homosexuality, and not a one of them would have called me a "homophobe" as I have no fear of the lifestyle or those in it, nor would they have called me a "hater".

Darek
"Gen. Pace fought for his right to call a spade a spade also."

So did I. Have you done your bit for our country?


"He is entitled to call homosexuality what it is. It's an abomination and the act of it is a sin."

I don't give a rat's *ss what his personal opinion is. It's his right to have one. As a leader in the military, he has a larger responsibility to the people serving under him. Maybe even somebody as seemingly obtuse as you can get that through your head.


"If you aren't religious it's not natural so it can't be OK."

Have you been drinking much? Green beer can really get to you, which I am guessing is what happened to that last sentence.


"Mother Nature does not crate many freaks."


Crating freaks is difficult, because they just won't stay put while you try to nail the lid shut.


"We do and we are responsible for our behavior."


I'm responsible for crating freaks? I want a raise, and a better benefits package. Freaks get craftier every year, and they make a dreadful amount of noise when you actually get them boxed up. We need to discuss shipping, port-of-entry issues, and the Humane Society called Legal regarding care and feeding concerns.



"Maybe too much pot when you were young or maybe your pregnant mother smoked this crap too often, who knows?"


Pot, reefer, cannibis, chronic, etc are all controlled substances according to state and federal law, as well as corporate policy. Random drug testing procedures are clearly outlined on the employee bulliten board behind the freak crates. As far as I know, my parents have never touched anything of the sort. Have yours? Break time is over, and the freaks are scampering by the loading dock, so I will need to go round them up. Thank's for the chat, and don't forget to talk to Ms. Slauson at Legal regarding the Humane Society.



Wayard1's "vast majority"
So something is immoral cause the "vast majority of society" thinks so? Lets review: A "vast majority" once thought slavery was okey-dokey. A "vast majority" thought women should not be allowed to vote. In certain Southern states--as recently as the 1960s a "vast majority" thought inter racial marriage should be illegal. There are countless examples of where the will of the majority CHANGES. The reason there is so much turmoil about homosexuality these days is that the "vast majority" is once again changing it's opinion in the direction of tolerence. How threatening that must be to bigots like wayward1.

Thankyou Wayward1 for illustrating how PATHETIC the arguments saying homosexuality is immoral are. Is this the best you can come up with? You proved my point, idiot.

Sorry, you are wrong again, Gunny G
In reality, the military does a darn good job of combating HIV. There are statistics that the incidence of HIV in the military is much lower than in the general population.

"Of the 900 to 1,000 HIV-positive people known to be in the military today, only 4 percent to 8 percent are likely to leave the service because of developing AIDS ... More will leave simply because they will have finished their terms."

Another interesting fact is that only
"about 60 percent of the new HIV infections in the military are from homosexual contact ... but infections from heterosexual contact are increasing, particularly among young, inner-city black men.

Above quotes are from
http://www.thebody.com/cdc/news_updates_archive/nov25_02/us_military_hiv.html
but you can get the information from elswhere too.

Given the size of the military population, an infection rate of about 1,000 is very small. In addition, it is getting to the point where only about half of the infections are even related to homosexual contact.

Its time to admit this hullabaloo over gays and aids in the military is one big red herring, and irrelavant. You need to find another argument to butress your losing position.

Still no explanations for homo=immoral
Wayward1: ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Homosexuality is immoral cause the "vast majority of society" thinks so? THAT'S the best you can come up with? A "vast majority" elected Hitler you idiot.( and be careful--the margin of people agreeing with you shrinks each year with each generation) And don't try sending me to links-do'nt have the time--NAMBLA is why homosexuality is immoral? I've never met a gay person who is a NAMBLA member...you are a perve for trying to link gays with child molesters--like there are no hetero child molesters? Again, AIDS the reason homosexuality is immoral? Book a flight to Africa to tell all of those heteros with AIDS that heterosexuality is immoral please.

The heterosexual agenda seems to be saying homosexuality is immoral without any convincing arguments that can't be instantly refuted with LOGIC.

I repeat--IN MY LIFETIME, I have not heard a single convincing argument as to why homosexuality is immoral. I've just heard alot of crap--like "it's in the Bible", "gays have AIDS", and "all gays are child molesters". Do any of you wonder why gay rights and gay marriage are SWEEPING THE PLANET? Cause your arguments are pieces of CRAP that anyone with a brain can see through instantly.

People who call millions of their fellow human beings "immoral" for the sexuality God created them with are in fact...IMMORAL.

jdw
When you claim that you have a "right" to object or somehow interfere in my marriage (which you did yesterday), then I assume you mean it. I have no real idea just how you intend to do that, but the fact you actually believe that MY MARRIAGE is YOUR BUSINESS is creepy enough. One of us needs proffesional help for d*mned sure, with respect to obsessive objectification. I don't think it's me. How about you keep your strange little "pervert" mutterings all to your strange little "pervert" self, and I'll not bother to address you again. When you make stalker sorts of comments, don't be surprised if people treat you like a stalker. Go bother somebody else, like your own family members for instance. Get help, while you are at it. If anybody saying things like you have said approaches and bothers me, I'm calling the police.

Mrs. V
Hi. I am a teacher and have often read that students are being recruited in schools. I confess that I must have missed the meeting on how we are to do that and my collegues don't seem to know either. Please tell me what I am supposed to be doing to recruit for the homosexual lifestyle. I just can't seem to figure it out. Thanks.

LiberalRealist
LR: Dude why are you lying?
Straight people are the one's who are obsessed with who's gay and gay sex.

G: What planet are you on? Straight guys aren't the ones parading around in drag and demanding special rights as a result of their chosen forms of conduct.

By the way, isn't "LiberalRealist" an oxymoron?

BEST to WORST
Excellent article, KMC. General Pace is a man of honor and integrity.

All the gnashing of teeth and frothing at the mouth aimed at the man, and KMC!, for his answering a question honestly and based own his own moral convictions is such a snapshot of our ever-expanding decadence.

brian asks: why is homosexuality immoral?

ALL SEXUAL ACTIVITY outside the sanction of holy matrimony between a man and a woman is immoral. The family was the first institution God created here on earth. He did that because it is the BEST arrangement for us humans, a Godly mom and dad to raise Godly children. This is a very simple concept.

Does this mean other arrangements are not made? Of course not. It means they are not BEST. In having a scale, that means there are degrees along the scale: some things are GOOD, some things are BAD, some things are going to be WORST.

The further we stray from God's idea of BEST leads to our ultimate death and destruction. There is plenty of historical evidence to prove this point because "there is nothing new under the sun." The further we stray from BEST, the more we suffer, individually, and nationally.

Which God? The God I'm referring to here, created the earth and everything in it; He had a Son, Jesus Christ, who loved us so much He gave His life as a sacrifice for our sins, then arose to intercede for us, and offer us eternal life. Stupid, evil, and greedy men claiming His name, are not of Him. The banner of Jesus Christ is LOVE, true love; the kind of Love that will tell you the truth no matter the howling and gnashing of teeth.

So all of you wishing to engage in immoral sexual acts, have at it. Just don't tell me about it, force me to condone it, or try to create false comfort for your guilt-ridden perversity with laws, and public discussions of things that should "never be spoken."

Also know that it is the JOB of Christians to point you away from WORST, toward BEST.

Ironically, in our upside-down culture, loving someone enough to show/tell them where they are wrong is called HATE speech.

Note to transgendered people: I hope you do not lump yourselves in with homosexuals.

Last thought: if one condones sin, he is as guilty as the one who sins; hence, note our current national state of disgrace where perversion is discussed as having merit or as a seriously relevant topic.