Larry King is a liar. The Left, of which he is a part, are liars. To be a liberal Democrat is to be a liar. None of that is news.
What is news is that a republican candidate for President accepted the word of Larry King, a member of all of the above mentioned Liars’ clubs, concerning statements made by America’s chief general leading our troops at war.
Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the following last week:
I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.
“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” Pace said.
Pace spoke of “behavior” ONLY. He did not speak on any “-ality” as being a sin. He did not say that being tempted was a “sin.”
He spoke of sexual “behavior” outside marriage as being sin, whether hetero- or homo-.
Liar King and star struck naive Mitt Romney? said the following subsequent to Pace’s comments:
KING: The chief of staff of the American military said, the joint chiefs, said that he believes that being gay is — I’m going to quote him exactly — “is a sin” and that he’s opposed to gays in the service.
Where are you?
M. ROMNEY: Well, you know, I think America is a compassionate nation and that we respect the right of other people to live their lives as they’d like to live them. I hope we can come together and be less divisive and bitter amongst our people. And so I’d like to show more tolerance and respect for others that live different lifestyles than we do.
So I think the choice of — of words of the chief of staff were — were inappropriate for — for the public discourse. He can believe what he wants to. That’s the great thing about America — believe what you want.
But in a — in a governmental setting, the right way to go is to show more of an outpouring of tolerance.
In my own view, I originally didn’t think the don’t ask, don’t tell policy made a lot of sense. It seemed kind of silly to me.
But you know what?
It’s worked. It’s been in place now for over a decade. The military seems to be getting along pretty well with that rule. We’re in the middle of a conflict right now. I wouldn’t change it right now. Let’s — let’s leave it the way it is.
Read the whole interview.
Mitt Romney allowed himself to be a tool of the Left to slander and smear an American hero. Is this man so naive?
Mitt has some explaining to do and an apology to make to the leader of our forces around the world that make it possible for Mitt and Larry to speak freely.
Mitt, will you apologize to Gen. Pace?
Notice I don’t ask the Leftist Liar to apologize. I don’t remember any true apology by a leftist (they only “regret getting caught or “mis-speak”) and knowing them so well during my 15+ years in the Democratic Party, I wouldn’t believe them anyway absent 10 years of demonstrated repentance.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
March 19th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Gamecock,
“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,”
Pace’s clearly saying that he thinks that homosexuality is immoral. I have to defend Mitt here, I think he was right to denounce his statements and I’m glad he did so.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Gamecock, What Gives? You write coherently here but on REDSTATE you seem DRUNK!!!
But tell us about this mental breakdown that so converted you to the acceptance of all things Republican.
By the way, MOE LANE is making a fool of you and other KoolAid Kids like WubbiesWorld.
Life is tough but WAKE UP, the Republicans are no more your salvation than the Dems were.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Also in Romney’s defense, I doubt he had a trascript of Gen. Pace’s comments in front of him and should not be expected to know word-for-word what Gen. Pace had said. Romney was there to give his own views, not defend Gen. Pace. King was trying to find out how Romney felt about tolerance of homosexuality. Ironically, Romney was more forceful and up-front about the issue than Sen. Clinton was.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
LJ
I see you are English language challenged like much of the left. That is sad.
I just lost a lot of intellectual respect for you LJ.
Homosexuality is a “state of being.” Acts are acts.
I hate nothing much more than for someone to read words with clear meanings and then look me in the eye with a glazed over look hoping I’ll engage in the fiction and tell me black is white.
The quotes could not be more clear.
I can’t consider you a serious person.
Mitt wasn’t given the correct quote from Liar King.
You have no such excuse.
You are perpetuating a lie about General Pace.
You should be ashamed and if this were my site you would not write on it until you repented or took remedial classes in English and passed a reading comprehension test.
I left the Democratic party over such as this.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Moe Lane nor any man can make a fool of me.
Because I am not a fool.
Give me the link to Moe’s attempt.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
and Frank
what is your point?
March 19th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Jake
Will Mitt always take leftists word for quotes of american heros and comment before fact checking?
March 19th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Wow.
Okay then…
March 19th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
You people understand that I lean to Mitt in the R4’08 and that I drink only in moderation.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
LJ
You can’t read Pace’s quote and say what you said with a straight face. I hate to have my intellectal credibility challenged. To agree with you I would have to suspend the functioning of my mind and participate in the kind of conversations that were common in the dem party, ie bith persons knowing that they are lying and yet pretending they are not in concert
with eyes glazed over.
Oace said “acts” and “behavior”. You know what those words meanand what “homosexuality” means. Pace specifically did not say he thought that latter was sin.
Pointedly did not.
It insults my intelligence for someone to see and pretend they don’t and then try and think they can fool Mike DeVine into participating.
I won’t. I can read and comprehend the english language.
I am calling out MY CANDIDATE, for now…
March 19th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
btw LJ
only Flyerhawk at Redstate can use “WOW”
March 19th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Gamecock, you seem to be assuming that Romney wasn’t already familiar with what General Pace said before appearing on Larry King. I find that to be pretty unlikely. So it’s doubtful that he had to “take King’s word” on what Pace said. Perhaps he actually does feel that what the general said was inappropriate…?
March 19th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
If every politician being interviewd on a LIVE news program waited to check the accuracy of a quote before answering a question, well I think we can agree that interviews would cease to exist. I’m not sure how Mitt can be faulted for not calling out Larry King when it was King who made the false quote. Seems like a cheap shot against Romney, but if that’s the worst thing you heard in the King interview, Romney must have done pretty well.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hunter
I am giving Mitt the benefit of the doubt just as LJ should give Pace the benefit of the doubt and actually read the words he said.
If Romney does think what Pace said was inappropriate, then it just increases the liklihhod I will have to hold my nose tighter when I vote for the GOP nominee in ’08, whover that may be.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
jake
I lean to Mitt. And this failure to distinguish between “acts” and “orientation” to smear conservatives is a regular tactic of the left.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
To Earth
I left the Dem Party due to my conservative epiphany, not allegiance to any man or party above principles.
I will not petend that non-conservatives are conservatives.
I do not have a high opinion of very many pols of either party.
I will vote for the republican nominee over any appeasing lib dem.
I will hold all our potential nominees to the fire and high standards.
When I pick a candidate in the winter of ’08, I will defend them as aggresively as I challenge them now.
Mitt screwed up here. I think it was due to the comfortable chair and fatigue. Did you see how low he sat in his chair and the bad haircut?
March 19th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I guess it’s all in how you look at things. Myself, I just don’t see any problem here. He was asked about tolerance of homosexuals and he answered the question. Acts vs. orientation just seems like semantics to me. Maybe it’s that homosexuality is a non-issue for me – I don’t feel it’s a sin and couldn’t care less who you or anyone else chooses to sleep with. Whether one tolerates the acts, the lifestyle, or both, it’s all the same to me. But I respect your difference of opinion on this.
As for how he looked. . .I have been working in television since 1995. Lighting, chair height, prop placement, camera angles – these are all old tricks of the trade, primarily to make the host look better (and King needs a lot of help in that department), and much less often to make the guest look worse. I’ve seen enough of these tricks – and performed a few in my time – to make me care a lot less about how a candidate looks on TV. It’s forced me to listen to what they have to say more closely.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:01 am
I have to agree with Gamecock here. I know he leans toward Mitt and I currently lean toward Rudy, so we have differences of opinion on the matter; however, he CLEARLY states the differences between BEHAVIOR (or: ORIENTATION) and the ACTS committed. There is a distinct and noticable difference. I have actually met someone who says he is homosexual in orientation, but who remains celebate (or at least claims so) because he personally believes homosexual activity is immoral.
Mitt should have known better; then again, he’s had a bit of a rough start. He’ll have to quickly learn that the media will distort EVERYTHING (even supposed “quotes”) in order to get the answer they want to hear, or force some “newsworthy” quote.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:04 am
jake
are you married?
acts keep the marriage going much better than orientation
March 20th, 2007 at 12:05 am
jake
larry asked what he asked
he did not use the word tolerance
have you applied to be a guest host
March 20th, 2007 at 12:07 am
thanks langdon
no one ever got aids or pregnant from orientation
March 20th, 2007 at 12:19 am
This argument is ridiculous!
Can we discuss something more substantial than whether Romney should have known the exact quote on a live show, and whether there is a big difference between orientation and acts?
The fact that Romney believed a misquote from King is King’s problem, not Romneys…
March 20th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Gamecock – No I am not married, nor am I guest host, both irrelevent questions. But at the risk of getting WAY off topic here, let me try to understand what you’re saying. It’s ok to be gay as long as you don’t have sex? No, I’m sure I must have misunderstood you. Because last I heard homosexuals are still human beings, and are legally allowed to have sex, which like it or not they do and will continue to do. So unless you want to outlaw sex among gay people, I’m not sure how you can seperate being gay and acting gay. Telling someone they can be gay but can’t “act” gay is like telling them they can’t “act” black or Christian or handicapped or any other human characteristic. And Langden – I don’t believe for one second your friend remains celebate. But on the sheer chance he’s telling you the truth – what a horrible way to live his life. I feel very sorry for him, that he lives his life thinking he’s not good enough to be a human being.
By the way, no one ever got aids or pregnant from orientation? What does that mean? People have gotten aids or pregnant through sexual acts. What’s your point? Straight people have contracted aids through sex, although I don’t know any gay men who ever got pregnant from acting gay. But then again I don’t know too many gay men.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:40 am
no jaype
we can’t and by your actions you don’t want to!
March 20th, 2007 at 12:41 am
JayPe. . .thank you. This really is the dumbest conversation I’ve ever had, so I don’t know why I was continuing it. I will stop now. Back to reality.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:41 am
jake
my point is that larry king lied about what Pace said and Romney denounced Pace based on King’s unsubstantiated assertion
March 20th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Jake
sex outside of marriage is a sin whether its done by a gamecock and a hen, a hen and a hen or two cocks
I don’t favor outlawing all sin.
look up the word orientation
read what people say
March 20th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I’ll simply refer you to what I said in post #4. It was a live interview, and politicians can’t stop live interviews to check on the accuracy of a host’s questions.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Gamecock,
So please tell me. Do you think that Gen. Pace is saying that, in his view, gays should be allowed in the military, so long as they do not engage in any homosexual behavior while serving?
That would be quite a shift in policy, and it seems entirely consistent with your interpretation of his words.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:56 am
jake
its a regular tactic of the left to purposefully confuse denunciations of acts as denunciations of temptation in orde to paint conservatives as haters
mitt knows this
mitt knew whose show he was on
March 20th, 2007 at 12:57 am
tano
i think pace said what he said
i posted the actual quote
since the quote is self evidently not the cahricature lie you like to use to paint us as bigots, you ignore the quote and instead throw out red herrings
not biting
March 20th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Tano. . .not to interrupt your question with a question, but maybe you can answer this. Why has the left been so accepting of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy? Seems like fighting this would fit right in with their agenda. (I don’t mean that as an insult to the left – I think it’s a dumb policy myself.)
March 20th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Jake,
I agree that it is a dumb policy. I suspect that it will be changed in the near future. Maybe even in a future Republican administration. I think the Dems are not pushing it hard because they are not in a position to change it (kinda hard when you dont have the CiC in your party). I am sure that there is also the political calculation that this is not the kind of issue they want to build the 08 platform around.
I think that allowing gays to serve openly, while maintaining the militarys right to disciplne or dismiss anyone who really does cause disruption, is good for the country, as well as fair for gays. But the good for the country is not a terribly huge thing, and doing right by minorities is not always a very good vote getter.
There are dems who are standing up for the principle, though I admit that no one is pushing very hard. Sometimes you have to wait for the country to evolve your way, and that time seems to be coming near.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Well fine Gamecock. Tell me about your own position then.
Should homosexuals be banned from the military?
Or only homosexual behavior?
March 20th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Obviously homosexual behavior isn’t useful in the military. It should be tolerated to the extent it isn’t harmful.
Among combat troops ostentatious homosexuality has the potential to add stress to already stressful situations(same reason women should be excluded from combat).
As far as non-combat positions homosexuality like any other personally distructive behavior ought to be tolerated as long as it doesn’t interfere with work.
Essentially homosexuality ought to be limited in situations were it is inconvenient because it serves no useful purpose of any kind for the military.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Why are 18 of the 35 (now 36!) responses on this article from Gamecock? Surely a little excessive. You have made your point sir, and I think we all understand it, even if we don’t agree with it…
March 20th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Econ. . .
“Obviously homosexual behavior isn’t useful in the military.”
So exactly which sexual behavior does serve a useful purpose for the military? Cuz had I known about the sexual benefits of military service when I was 18 I’d have signed up in a heartbeat. Add sex to the GI bill and we wouldn’t have the recruitment problems we have today.
Seriously, though, every argument against gays in the military has been used agaisnt Blacks and Native Americans years ago. It stressed out the white guys. It caused dissention among the ranks. But minority races were integrated into the military anyway and things seem to be ok. No mutinies, no civil war. So unless gay soldiers are having sex on the battlefield, how is being gay harming the military? Sex in the barracks? No one is allowed to have sex in the barracks. Sexual harassment of other soldiers? Again, never allowed under any circumstances. So where is the harm? And are we actually sending troops into battle against potential nuclear or biological attack who are afraid to be in a room with a gay guy?
“. . .homosexuality like any other personally destructive behavior out to be tolerated as long as it doesn’t interfere with work.”
Without going into why you think homosexuality is personally destructive, what other personally destructive behaviors do you feel should be tolerated?
Personally I feel if a gay guy wants to lay down his life to defend this country and save my butt from terrorists and bad guys, more power to him. He’s got my full gratitude. And he’s a better man than I am, since I never served in the military.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Homosexuals only run into trouble when they try to promote their lifestyle and/or practice it overtly. In my experience many homosexuals served (we knew exactly who they were) and none of us had any problem with it as long as they were discrete.
I don’t see why the officers should tolerate folks who try to promote any type of bizarre sexual acts(are you going to let people who prefer dog-sex serve openly?).
Don’t ask, don’t tell is just a way to keep homosexuals discrete about behavior that many people find disgusting and distracting.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:38 am
That’s exactly my point. Sex of any kind is not allowed while serving. Straight people are banned from having sex in the barracks or in a tank or behind the latrine just like gays are. No one of any lifestyle or preference may act in any way deemed disruptive by the military brass. If “Don’t ask don’t tell” applies to homosexuals only, then what about the other “disgusting” behaviors? So I ask again, why are homosexuals being singled out? How are they harming the military in a way no one else is?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Econ Grad Stud,
I agree with Jake here. DADT is more than just something to keep gays discrete. One can be dismissed for BEING gay, not acting gay. Acting gay, or straight, (ie. acting sexually) is punishable by existing regs.
The fact that you served with gays and it was no problem, is all the answer you need.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:53 am
The question comes down to what benefit does the military get by allowing individuals to serve openly as opposed to being discrete about what their sexual behavior. I don’t see any advantage because homosexuals already can serve if they aren’t pushing their sexual preference.
So basicly you’re just opening up the military to PC sensitivity training to promote ‘tolerance’ for the ‘gay lifestyle’. I don’t think that’s particularly helpful.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Also add on the administrative headaches when ‘gays’ start claiming discrimination… discrimination that wouldn’t have existed if they had just been discrete under DADT.
The military isn’t a social experiment. It is there for national defense.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Gamecock, you owe Mitt Romney an apology for you being stupid.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:20 am
EGS,
The military isn’t a social experiment. It is there for national defense.
Sure. But I’d be careful with that argument, because it’s the same that one many made when Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which desegregated the military in 1948.
My problem with DADT is this, the military is so stretched thin that we have exhausted all of our combat-ready reserve forces to the point where the military could barely find enough troops for the surge. Peter Pace has said that were another conflict to break out, we might not have enough troops to contain it. Between 2001 and 2005, there were 4,376 discharges due to DADT (8,116 since 1994). The military has also discharged many gay Arabic speakers, and given that that is the most needed language right now, it seems that DADT is actually hurting our national defense instead of helping it.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Gamecock, I’ve gotta say that for a while, I’ve simply disagreed with you, but now, you’ve lost a lot of respect from me.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:00 am
“The question comes down to what benefit does the military get by allowing individuals to serve openly as opposed to being discrete about what their sexual behavior. I don’t see any advantage because homosexuals already can serve if they aren’t pushing their sexual preference.”
Well, they can put up pictures of their boyfriends/girlfriends and talk openly about them. Right now to do so will get them kicked out. It will remove the added stress of trying to live a lie 24/7. How much easier it would have been for the first soldier that got wounded in Afghanistan if he had been able to talk to his boyfriend on the phone during his recovery instead of pretending he didn’t have one.
As far as the liberal left being all liars, well I would be careful what I said. The Republicans have been caught lying far too much in the past few years to throw stones. Look at the Justice Department mess right now.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:34 am
LJ, esp, but also nusrat and tano
First of all, I retain a massive amount of respect for you. But this incident is simply so representative of what I came to loathe about democrats and it breaks my heart to see my new ideological frinds put blinders on to the plain meaning of the english language on such a fundamental tactic of the left on gay issues.
The distinction between Homosexulaity, ie orientation/Temptations as opposed to behavior/homosexual acts is fundamental. The english language is clear and the teaching of the Bible is clear.
All are tempted and all are oriented to sin.
It is not sin to be oriented or tempted.
Christ himself was tempted.
Pace made clear he was talking about sinful behavior whether by straights or gays.
more later
March 20th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Nusrat and Tano
I will answer your questions when I have time even if they are a threadjack off the issue and basically diversionary tactics by you.
But your questions do go to the crux of related matters.
more later
March 20th, 2007 at 8:52 am
jaype
still counting my comments?
please submit report forthwith
March 20th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Gamecock,
I am not a Romney supporter and this may very well be an example of how Romney will try to please both sides of an issue and basically get nowhere. HOWEVER, I do believe that Mitt Romney may have given an appropriate response on this topic, given the fact that he is running for president of -all- the people. As for Pace’s comments, I think he went over that line in expressing his own personal beliefs in a high position of power.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Excellent Comment KT..
March 20th, 2007 at 10:05 am
thank you sir!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I have been profoundly impressed by General Pace from what Michael Yon has said of him and his handling of this affair. Anyone know of if there is some biographical information on him out there?
Romney probably was too critical of Pace, but he was really just reiterating what he has been saying all along. We should be tolerant and respectful of homosexuals, but at the same time, that doesn’t mean that we should let them marry or do away with Don’t ask, don’t tell.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“We should be tolerant and respectful of homosexuals, but at the same time, that doesn’t mean that we should let them marry or do away with Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Yep, just like we should be respectful of those black folk, just don’t let them move next door or marry our daughters. Bigotry is bigotry and equal is equal.
Pace is allowed his opinion, as the saying goes, everyone has one. What he shouldn’t do is allow his opinion to influence the laws. He should have just stated that at the current time DADT is the law and until it changes he must abide by it.
Romney is like the pig in Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Being black is not the same as BEHAVIOR.
There is an underlying REASON for dont ask dont tell. Pace verbalized it. So if Pace is deemed intolerant, then so is Romney.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Yep, there was an underlying reason they didn’t allow blacks in the military for a long time too. I also agree, so is Romney.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Yes, Blacks were Black. Behavior didn’t matter. They were discriminated agaimnst beacuse their skin was too brown.
Those that desire to have sex with those other than their spouse are not discriminated against.
Those that HAVE sex outside marriage can be disciplined for ACTS.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Gamecock. . .you are 100% wrong here. First of all, regarding the military and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, homosexuals are descriminated for being gay, not for having sex. You can play semantic games all you want, but that’s the way it is. Second, only gay people are descriminated against. If a man has sex with a man and then joins the army, he can be removed if it’s discovered that he is gay. If a man has sex with a woman (outside of marriage) and then joins the army, he does not run the risk of expulsion if he’s found out. So it’s only gays who face this punishment. You may not agree with the gay lifestyle, and it may be totally against everything you believe in religiously, and in America you have that right and I’ll fight to protect that right. But while our laws are based on Judeo-Christian theology, we don’t live in a country ruled by the bible, and if we start legislating based on religious beliefs of a part of society, we’re in a lot of trouble. One needs only to look at the Middle East to see the results of living under a theocratic government.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Gamecock, not sure what you’re talking about in regards to diverting the topic. I didn’t even ask a question.
If two men are having homosexual acts, and it hurts no one, who are you to say that is immoral? Two people who love each other are sharing their love with each other, and although you disapprove, how is it immoral?
Besides, Jake is right, it’s about being attracted to men, not about having gay sex. The act of being homosexual is not immoral in the least, and it is not a “sin”.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
and Gamecock, I really think it’s very bigoted of you to say what you are saying. I have several gay friends, and I think the world of them, as they’re really great people. For you to brush them off as “immoral” just because of their natural sexual orientation, that is bigoted and mean-spirited.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I am not someone who believes that gays are gay because they chose it or they are showing a certain pattern of “behavior”. Yes, many gays live their lives with their sexuality on their sleeves, but that could also come from growing up having to repress their feelings and identity. I believe it is a natural thing and people are born with that gene, or whatever. I think if the entire universe would take a philosophical view on homosexuality, such as the following, people would be more accepting of one another:
Homosexuals in the population make up about 10 per cent of the population. It always has been about 10 per cent (I think in the history of western civilization) and it probably will CONTINUE to be 10 per cent. What if this was representative of the fact that it is a natural force and natures way of 1) controlling the population and 2) balancing out the ratio between men and women.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Nusrat
I have represented more gays being discriminated against than you have gay friends. I have helped an openly gay legislator in the south draft legislation to protect gays by doing so with laws protecting ALL individuals’ rights.
So I have no fear of falsely being called a bigot.
All persons are born oriented to sin, not just gays.
The military bars all unmarried personnel from having sex with fellow warriors.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Larry King lied about what Pace said. I gave the quotes. How old are you people? Can you read the quotes? Its obvious, like this:
2 + 2 = 4
March 20th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Wait, so you’re in favor of the right to be gay, just not the right to act gay?
March 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
KT,
I think 10% is a gross overestimate of the gay population. I think it’s more typically held at 2%.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Gamecock, just tell me what is immoral about homosexuality, please. I don’t see what your beef, no pun intended, is with it.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
His beef, from what I can gather, is that he sees homosexuality as immoral based on biblical teachings. Fine, I’m ok with that. It’s his right to take that position and lead a heterosexual lifestyle based on that belief. But that biblical teaching cannot be forced on others when it contradicts US law, in the same way that we don’t stone people to death for adultry or chop off hands for stealing. Descrimination based on sexual preference is against the civil rights laws. So while anyone can believe that homosexuality is immoral, no one can descriminate against others based on those beliefs.
I can’t believe we’re even having this discussion in 2007. Are we as human beings ever going to move beyond this?
March 20th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
As requested, another updated count:
Gamecock is now at 25/68, so the percentage has declined below the crucial 50%
March 20th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Gamecock,
Respectfully, I think that your comments regarding your previous work with gay clients, contradicts your criticism of Romney for merely defending individuality.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
KT
There may be some truth to what you say depending on what Mitt knew about what Pace said when he was asked the questions premenised by two lies about what Pace said.
My gay friends (many of whom agree with me) know that I belive any and all sex outside marriage is a sin; that I and they are sinners quilty of this sin; and that such behavior in the military cannot be publickly condoned for a variety of reasons. But that the main reason we don’t ask and dont tell is that it is sin but one that is the most popular and least resistable!
I don’t go out of my way to chastise myself for sex outside marriage or that of others gay or straight.
My main gripe is King’s lies and Mitt either naively not realizing he was being used by alib to brand conservatives as bigots or relishing the opportunity to participate and unfairly play into the left’s lie and not recognze the behavior vs orientation distinction.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
jaype
thanks, and you did have a point
March 20th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Nusrat and jake
Not getting the beef pun. Well, not wanting to. But, ok. haha
NOTHING is wrong about homosexuality. Defined as BEING oriented to sexual attraction to the same sex
ality
ality
ality
Its actual sex outside behavior that is wrong, homo or hetero.
acts
acts
behavior
behavior
Sexual intercourse is meant by God to be restricted to marriage because of many reasons. One is that intercourse between a married ciuple is a picture of the unification of us with God so that God can make us into sons of god. To not be fully committed inb marriage renders the act as using the sexual union for mere gratification.
Books are written on this. The best one is the Bible.
Many acts are punished by “force” thru law, some for secuar and some for religious reasons.
In this country we have free speech and then we vote.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:18 am
It’s hardly fair to fault them for having sex outside of marriage when they’re not allowed to marry in the first place.
You should not pass laws based on theology; that moves us towards a fascist theocracy.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:02 am
You forget that premarital sex of any kind is a sin also. Should we kick out all military personal that have premarital sex, or have had it in the past. Why do we cherry pick which sins the military accepts? The Bible shouldn’t figure in on it. Who can best serve the country should be at issue not their sexuality.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
We should surrender to secularism and never let any wisdom transmitted via religion inform our choices?
not
March 21st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Yes. Secularism is best…just as the founding fathers intended.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
You need to study the founders and identify criminal laws that are not informed by religious belief.
We have free speech in a republic, including free religious speech. WHY people vote for a law matters not so long as it garners a majority and is not vetoed.
Murder laws come to mind.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Free religious speech, not freedom to enact religious laws. It is a theocracy once you have laws based on theology, not morals.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
Nusrat
WE THE PEOPLE govern ourselves. So long as no is punished for attending their church, required to attend another Church, or denied free speech or assembly a law does not violate the First Amendment.
Most ALL laws have religious reasons at their base.