"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we (the military) should not condone immoral acts" - Peter Pace.
But killing people, being Donald Rumsfeld's 'yes-man', and turning Iraq into a wasteland is not immoral? I must say, I am always astonished at this 'selective' morality.
2007-03-13 15:35:41 · 11 answers · asked by The ~Muffin~ Man 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Dearest, we never said those in the government were smart, did we now....and these guys haven't ever been in battle. I'd like for the Commanders in cheif or in Charge to get back out to the Front with their men (where they actually belong and not sitting comfortably behind a desk somewheres safe) and spill some blood and guts....I know immoral..... then they'd know fear and terror again.
No, this man has no concept of either morals or ethics. He has politics. Blessings.
2007-03-13 16:12:43 · answer #1 · answered by Mama Otter 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A old time military guy being anti-gay.
If he came out and said he didnt care, then you would KNOW he is lying.
He is a dinosaur no doubt, well past the time were he can formulate new ideas like, ANYONE thats willing to go and get shot at in iraq needs to be signed up now.
He is at least a honest idiot. Most people wouldnt admit that sorta thing, but outta the light of the camera work to actively deny gay rights.
Like all these @holes that say they arent homophobes and still vote down gay marriage laws.
Admittedly, i only know 2 people that are gay (that i know of) but i think both would serve the country proudly (if they choose to and were allowed to)
2007-03-13 15:47:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Very true... and the whole thing about Adultry being not being looked over... I call Bull-**** on that one! He obviously has no clue about how it really works... becasue while I was in the service, adultry was given the blind eye... and not once was a person I worked with charged when EVERYONE knew the person they were married to was not the one they were haveing "fun" with.
Selective morals is right... he is behind the times and obviously... under a rock to think his moral views are the only one suitable for the military.
2007-03-13 15:47:53 · answer #3 · answered by Whatev' Yo' 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would nominate him ignoramus for the year, but there are so many different others who pop up routinely to say stupid things. So I'd settle for ignoramus of the day.
2007-03-13 15:50:59 · answer #4 · answered by Julia Sugarbaker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. BUT Ignoramus of the Year works.
2007-03-14 05:02:50 · answer #5 · answered by jasgallo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you completely. I don't understand why he had to make those statements. What's the point? I'm going to set him up with Ann Coultergeist. Could you imagine the little demons that these two cretins would spawn?
2007-03-13 22:29:26 · answer #6 · answered by DawnDavenport 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is why I left the military because of bigoted leaders like this...
2007-03-13 16:44:40 · answer #7 · answered by Mike R 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Peter Pace is entitled to his view.
It is inappropriate, however, to make political policy based on one individual's personal opinion.
2007-03-13 15:42:22 · answer #8 · answered by Clarkie 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely. It's about time that these self-righteous haters paid for their hypocrisy.
2007-03-13 15:39:37 · answer #9 · answered by SB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're talking apples and oranges. He's entitled to his opinion, but he shouldn't be making his religious views into military policy.
2007-03-13 15:43:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋