Sign our petition:
http://unaskpace.googlepages.com

Thank you very much

Well, moron, since they cannot legally criticize the administration during active duty I would think they shouldn’t be allowed to voice their other beliefs.

Not if it prevents you from being able to do your job. This is why we don’t have Amish soldiers – dum bass.

If your *beliefs* prevent you from doing your job, or being *qualified* for that job – then you shouldn’t hold that job. Whether you’re a pharmacist that won’t sell prescribed medication, or a bigot that shouldn’t be commanding troops, or a blogger that’s too st*pid to qualify to post on a progressive blog. You’re just as unsuited to be here, as that *sshole is to be there. But you’re both too st*pid to know it!

Honestly, that seems flat inpossible to demand that people not use their morals and personal views while on the job. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 5:56 pm

So it’s OK for you, if a gang banger is allowed to be a police officer? After all, you don’t want to prevent them from having the job because of their personal views and morals – right?

It is funny to try and think of a bunch of people brainless working like that though. Very computerized indeed. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 5:56 pm

Thing about yourself, and brainless people is exactly what you get! You’re one st*pid old c*nt – are you girlie-man?

It’s immoral to continue wars against the voices of “by the prople for the people” government.

It’s wrong to enact laws like “The Patriot Act” to get around that pesky Consitution and to over-extend the reach of the Executive Office.

It’s wrong to cut funding to PBS — the last remaining free press in this nation.

It’s wrong to lie to start and maintain wars and it’s wrong to steal elections.

It’s wrong to explout other nations and peoples (I personaly demand to see a photo of Bush in a sugar cane field — INSIDE the hell of an ACTUAL sugar cane field not standing on the hill up at the big house — any treaty with Brazil requiring the production of sugar cane should have ensured minimum standards of health, safety and wages for the workers whose blood we will be driving our cars on).

It’s wrong to kill people. It’s wrong to “out” your enemies and it’s wrong to disappaer and torture people.

It’s NOT wrong to have or to express the sexuality God sent you to earth with.

It is however, immoral to judge others, line up (as if you, in fact, were God) sinners and non-sinners, and to withhold rights from certain groups. The withholding right bit is particularly galling in a country built on equality for all citizens.

I am not personaly gay, I am just a big supporter of the Constitution and of God.

Thank you, Dian Larkin

We agree. That’s why ’social-engineering’ religious nuts like Pace, and you shouldn’t be serving. You distract from soldiers getting their job done, with all of your homophobia. The people with the apparently ‘immutable trait’ that makes them unsuitable for service are homophobes like yourself! Gay people prove every day they are capable, and suited to serve. Homophobes like yourself prove every day you are incompetent and unworthy of service.

That’s reality – not your ‘religious social engineering’ – nutjob.

Ok, Patrick1, how do you justify keeping a ban that the majority of serving military think should be rescinded? How do you justify keeping a ban that other countries have successfully ended?

All the arguments used in support of the ban are almost the same as the ones used in the 40’s to support banning black from serving. At the time, they claimed that white service members would be uncomfortable serving with blacks and that morale would suffer and all manner of horrible things would happen if blacks were allowed to serve.

Let me guess, Patrick1, you would support the ban on a racially integrated service had you lived in the 40’s, right?

Comment by Patrick1

No one has ever shown that “homosexuality” somehow interferes directly with the military mission and, therefore, the exclusion of homosexuals from the military and this post are both pure drivel. Exclusion of homosexuals from any part of society is “tinkering by social engineers” of a particular religious stripe, devoid of any secular reason for such discrimination. As some either-or thinkers are wont to say – “end of story”.

I mean, lets see the complete transcript. How did these topics come up? I’m assuming a roundtable (out of nowhere) with the (conservative) Chicago Tribune had mostly to do with Iraq….right?

I’m not feeling this one. Pace to me has always seemed like #1 he will follow and do what hes told, no MATTER what the orders are and #2 hes pretty thoughtful….these comments do not seem like his own.

Making love with someone who wants to make love with you
versus……
Arranging for the slaughter of hundreds/thousands of people you never met, civilians and combatants alike.

For me it’s a no-brainer. This fool might leave the morality questions to others a bit more qualified to make such determinations.

Whatever you do, don’t think about gay sex.

(As an aside, the purpose of the military is not to “protect our freedoms”. That’s the citizen’s job.)

Even a temporary condition such as illness or excess weight can disqualify a person for military service. Homosexuality is an immutable trait, we are told. It happens to be a trait that the military concludes is outside the acceptable range for service.

Not everyone gets to serve. It isn’t about “equality”, but accomplishing the mission without unnecessary distractions and tinkering by social engineers.

Oh wait, maybe this *is* the view of the administration…..

No one is saying this man’s rights to free thought and free speech should be violated. Free speech doesnt mean consequence-free speech however. Sometimes you lose your job over it.

Part of this man’s job is to represent the US military publically. He has voiced an objectionable opinion in that capacity. If the SecDef, Prez, et al object to having this personal opinion represented by one of their employees, he loses his job- end of story. Much the same way that if you or I went around bad mouthing our boss in public, we would find ourselves out of work.

Free Speech != Consequenceless Speech

Comment by Patrick1

For this: claiming that the military should “not tolerate” homosexuality just as it rejects “military members who sleep with other military members’ wives.” He is injecting his personal religious beliefs into his position as a military leader on the decision making process of who “should” be allowed to serve. There is no comparison with adultery, which is a direct harm done to one person by another. There is no SECULAR reason to deny any social right to homosexuals.