http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/domestic-politics/moral-judgment-from-the-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs/ School's out. The New School is in session. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:23:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/domestic-politics/moral-judgment-from-the-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs/#comment-40 Eftychis Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:02:21 +0000 http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/?p=70#comment-40 I agree with you that what he said was wrong, but it is his right to say what he wants and as one of the few people who has fought to defend this country he deserves to say whatever the hell he wants. As far as I am concerned, the issue of homosexuality should only concern the military in terms of combat performance, not the personal beliefs of generals and the joint chiefs. The policy of dont ask, dont tell should only be used if it is found to make a difference in improving the performance of the military. If it can be proven that homosexuals makes the military an inadequate fighting force, then they should not serve in combat roles. If people of homosexual orientation do not hurt the military and their efforts to serve their country are beneficial then by all means they should serve. I personally believe that even if homosexuals are found to hamper performance on the battlefield that they can play key posistions in legistics, linguistics, and also inteligence. While I do not think that the generals comments were appropriate, he is entitled to say them. What I also found interesting is that after General Peter Pace made his remarks two notable Democratic Candidates were asked about homosexuality. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama criticized the statements, but neither was willing (when pressed) to admit that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. What I find interesting about this is that many homosexuals will be supporting those candidates and if neither of them are willing to say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality than they should not get the gay vote. Tucker Carlson on MSNBC brought this to my attention today and my views align with his, make up your mind Hillary and Obama, is homosexuality bad? I agree with you that what he said was wrong, but it is his right to say what he wants and as one of the few people who has fought to defend this country he deserves to say whatever the hell he wants. As far as I am concerned, the issue of homosexuality should only concern the military in terms of combat performance, not the personal beliefs of generals and the joint chiefs. The policy of dont ask, dont tell should only be used if it is found to make a difference in improving the performance of the military. If it can be proven that homosexuals makes the military an inadequate fighting force, then they should not serve in combat roles. If people of homosexual orientation do not hurt the military and their efforts to serve their country are beneficial then by all means they should serve. I personally believe that even if homosexuals are found to hamper performance on the battlefield that they can play key posistions in legistics, linguistics, and also inteligence.
While I do not think that the generals comments were appropriate, he is entitled to say them. What I also found interesting is that after General Peter Pace made his remarks two notable Democratic Candidates were asked about homosexuality. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama criticized the statements, but neither was willing (when pressed) to admit that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. What I find interesting about this is that many homosexuals will be supporting those candidates and if neither of them are willing to say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality than they should not get the gay vote. Tucker Carlson on MSNBC brought this to my attention today and my views align with his, make up your mind Hillary and Obama, is homosexuality bad?

]]>