Brownback supports Pace's remark on gays

[John28]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_el_pr/brownback_gays

Only one major candidate for president was willing to clearly state state their opinion on this issue. The rest avoided, sidestepped or engaged in weasel words. IMO this is how to inspire people!

 

[Dale_M]

Brownback spokesman Brian Hart said the senator was working Thursday to get other lawmakers to sign his letter. Hart said Brownback’s office would not disclose who has signed on to the letter until there is “a final count.”

It will be interesting to see who signs on. Would getting a large number or wide diversity of signatories also be a sign of Brownback’s leadership?

 

[b_justb]

Asked whether he agreed with Pace’s comments, Brownback said: “I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I’m a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this.”

Nicely said, Mr. Brownback.

 

[slewi]

I was just about to post this…I am going to look into this fellow some more, but I like what he said there!

 

[Mirdath]

While I appreciate the man’s candor, I don’t see how one can really justify DADT merely on ‘moral qualms’ over the private behavior of people whose job is killing other people.

 

[StMarkEofE]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_el_pr/brownback_gays

Only one major candidate for president was willing to clearly state state their opinion on this issue. The rest avoided, sidestepped or engaged in weasel words. IMO this is how to inspire people!

The only mistake by the good general was that he succumed to the notion that personal opinions wouldnt impact anything. But he was wrong. The media feeds on this stuff. This was red meat for the lefties. I agree with him that keeping his personal opinions to himself would have been the best strategy.

Open displays of homosexuality within the ranks would be tantamount to complete break down of discipline so necessary in building a cohesive fighting force. I cant imagine the repercussions within the barracks in such an environment.

 

[M-Dent]

Good to see another man with a backbone.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

President Brownback and Vice President Pace. Looks good to me.

CDL

 

[francesco920]

President Brownback and Vice President Pace. Looks good to me.

CDL

Amen!

And after, that, they can both be appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

While I appreciate the man’s candor, I don’t see how one can really justify DADT merely on ‘moral qualms’ over the private behavior of people whose job is killing other people.

Pax tecum!

Homosexual acts are ALWAYS wrong; every individual act is wrong. Killing someone else is NOT always wrong. It depends on the individual circumstances. I also find that comment about the military quite insulting, as I had a grandfather who served in Europe during WWII (he was a medic, so he hardly “killed other people”), a grandmother who taught fighter pilots in WWII (she was not a soldier, so she hardly “killed other people” either), and several friends in the army right now.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Walburga]

I am surprised that the article wasn’t rated (see the bottom of the article). I gave it 5 stars because I think as many people as posible should read it. Go ahead and rate it folks!

 

[Mirdath]

Pax tecum!

Homosexual acts are ALWAYS wrong; every individual act is wrong. Killing someone else is NOT always wrong. It depends on the individual circumstances. I also find that comment about the military quite insulting, as I had a grandfather who served in Europe during WWII (he was a medic, so he hardly “killed other people”), a grandmother who taught fighter pilots in WWII (she was not a soldier, so she hardly “killed other people” either), and several friends in the army right now.

In Christ,
Rand

I was rather blunt, wasn’t I? I’m sorry if it offended you; but the fact remains that killing people and blowing things up is the primary function of any state’s military. Would that it weren’t.

As to the ‘immorality’ question, General Pace, Senator Brownback, and you can all believe whatever you like about it, but basing national policy on one’s personal religious beliefs is reprehensible.

 

[rlg94086]

I was rather blunt, wasn’t I? I’m sorry if it offended you; but the fact remains that killing people and blowing things up is the primary function of any state’s military. Would that it weren’t.

As to the ‘immorality’ question, General Pace, Senator Brownback, and you can all believe whatever you like about it, but basing national policy on one’s personal religious beliefs is reprehensible.

What a ridiculous statement. It isn’t based on “one’s” beliefs. It was voted on by congress and approved by a president, all of whom were elected by the people.

That’s how it works.

Some of the elected officials made their decisions for strictly moral/religious reasons, others made their decision based on practical considerations. All of those reasons are valid when casting a vote.

 

[Mirdath]

What a ridiculous statement. It isn’t based on “one’s” beliefs. It was voted on by congress and approved by a president, all of whom were elected by the people.

That’s how it works.

Some of the elected officials made their decisions for strictly moral/religious reasons, others made their decision based on practical considerations. All of those reasons are valid when casting a vote.

I can’t think of any reasoning, practical or no, behind DADT except ‘eww, gays’. Not only that, the policy’s proven dangerously counterproductive as shown by the discharge of a couple dozen Arabic translators – a skill which is in extremely short supply in the military. That it’s still in place, indeed that it ever became policy, speaks volumes of our elected representatives’ (and our appointed generals’) ability to keep their own kneejerk reactions out of other peoples’ business.

 

[gilliam]

I can’t think of any reasoning, practical or no, behind DADT except ‘eww, gays’. Not only that, the policy’s proven dangerously counterproductive as shown by the discharge of a couple dozen Arabic translators – a skill which is in extremely short supply in the military. That it’s still in place, indeed that it ever became policy, speaks volumes of our elected representatives’ (and our appointed generals’) ability to keep their own kneejerk reactions out of other peoples’ business.

When you are showering with other soldiers, sailors and marines you didn’t choose to be with, and are sleeping next to other soldiers you didn’t choose to be next to (for months on end). Other people’s business tends to become, not so partially, your business. My son lived in the same room with a number of other soldiers in Iraq for months before he was moved to the luxury of a single roommate. And it is usually worse for the enlisted sailors aboard ship. They have virtually no privacy. If the government wanted you to have privacy, they would have issued it. In the military, they don’t.

But I am agnostic on the law. If it changes, I would not care since it doesn’t seem to bother my son. He thinks the whole issue is dumb. But he was raised by his mom and I. A lot of others were not.

 

[M-Dent]

And it is usually worse for the enlisted sailors aboard ship. They have virtually no privacy. If the government wanted you to have privacy, they would have issued it. In the military, they don’t.

Exactly.

Many times units become very tight and everyone knows a lot of personal details of one another. There are some lifestyles better left unspoken of. Yes, people make mistakes, they make bad choices but a good unit doesn’t encourage this, instead, they try to help people overcome them.

There are many service members who have strong religious belief systems (serving God, Family, and Country) - and thats the greatest reason the US military strives to be the best in the world.

Take away the moral backbone of the military and the institution has crumbled at the foundation.

“The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality’s foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide.”

Ronald Reagan