If the US military can’t keep combattants apart from civilians, they shouldn’t invade a country on a whim and without any need. The Iraqi resistance has a right to fight back, but to eliminate civilians because the resistance is too smart for the US military is the wrong response — which applies to Afghanistan as well. That’s what qualifies as immoral in my book.

I am writing this from Germany, and many here meanwhile view the US with utmost suspicion, because the US resembles more and more each year what the Americans of a long-forgotten generation liberated us from. The fascistic leadership now is just much more incompetent by comparison … but that’s another blog, altogether.

Yesssss…. fighting religious extremists for the right to be religious extremists. Gotta love America.

I always did have a soft spot for him. He’s so graceful with the media. He always seemed like someone I could trust.

So there’s the projection part of me that’s lashing out against a hurtful stereotype, complicated with the seeming betrayal of trust.

Poor guy, he’s so nice, I actually kind of feel for him now that you mention it. I mean, who elso would put there foot in their mouth like that but someone who was open and honest.

Well, at best I’ll keep a prejudiced open mind. But I’ll do my best. :-)

Yeah, on the other hand, he’s a dinosaur, and things need dto change in the military. But until then he’s basically only saying what the code supports. Eh….

He thinks that the mutual consent of two persons is “just like” two people conspiring to cheat on a third – and also the ignoring of it by those who know about it?

Zero victims is equal to one victim? Honest consent is equal to dishonest conspiracy? And this is the “morality” of a top US General?

Nothing inspires confidence in the person in charge of your safety like knowing they don’t know the difference between nothing and something.

I might agree that he needs a course in ethics, but the morally relative don’t “learn” morality, they design it.

However, even in the case of adultery, it looks like more must be proved than mere lust after a married person. In addition to intercourse (not just kissing, flirtation or other sexual activity) to someone married, the military must also demonstrate that the act brings “discredit onto the armed forces.”

It’s not just that the act is immoral.

Further breaking down the parallel is that homosexual *activity* is not the focus, but even orientation.

General Pace needs a course in ethics, I’d say. The two situations simply aren’t the same.

Of course, I don’t believe this, but I do believe that the majority will forgive its Biblically-based sins while casting out the minority for their alleged Biblically-based sins. I write “alleged” because many Biblical scholars note that the sections of text that the fundies all cite to justify their hatred of homosexual citizens has been recently modified.

Adultery is still a (civilian) crime in some states as well, although (as ck notes) it’s not really prosecuted these days. I’d be curious whether adultery laws would stand up under Lawrence (Scalia thought they wouldn’t–his dissent is a fascinating read, weirdly inspiring).

Pace is surely an idiot, but I’m glad to see the issue being discussed. From what I’ve been reading, a lot of people are pretty tired of DADT and I’m a little hopeful that it actually may finally be done away with.

p.s. the link for “responded this way” just seems to lead back to boxturtlebulletin.com.

Um, we prosecute adultery? I think the General is confusing the United States with Saudi Arabia or another country where he spent a tour of duty. He’s certainly entitled to believe that being gay is immoral. The question is whether it impacts ability to serve. And it does not, as other militaries have demonstrated.