Why can't a general in the military hold a personal belief that homosexuality is immoral and say it publicly
It doesn't make him right nor does it make him bad at his job. People have a right to hold whatever stupid beliefs they want, don't they?
Answer:
Most people want to bash the rules that the military has had for years.Since the military is voluntary and homosexuals are frowned upon,Clinton then came out with the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy.Frankly,I think this should be a govt Policy..,we dont care that they are homosexuals,why keep telling us?
Because Democrats are fascists. The 1st Amendment only applies to them.
they certainly do have that right,but in this day and age one has to be prepared for the fallout.PC,racist,bigot all those terms used to stifle free speech.
Not anymore. If you've offended anyone, you're always in the wrong, even if you are in charge of 100,000 Americans who voluntarily put their lives on the line everyday and can technically be called one of the most powerful people in the world.
We need to love eachother and drive Priuses, and the world will be saved by large colorful dragons with packets of flower seeds that grow SUVs that run on sunshine and happy feelings and our nuclear aresnal will turn into a massive stockpile of peppermint patties.
He can.
It's called freedom of speech.
Nobody is suggesting that he should be fitted with a gag. Some people are just complaining about what he said. They have a right to complain about his viewpoint.
The General has every right to his opinion. If gays can slap their way of life in our faces 24/7 then I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Deal with it folks, you can't force feed your way of life to the people and expect them to accept it with open arms.
Not when you are a reflection of the government. You say what they want the monkey to say and nothing else. That goes for all military, from the private to the general. There's no place for personal opinion.
Because in the military there are different rules of conduct and engagement. I'm not saying they are right, they are just different. People die every day in the military. Every soldier depends on every other soldier to have their back and be willing to "die for them." Personal biases are known to play a role.
And I'm not bashing soldiers in any way, but they are not typically the highest educated in the group. Lower educated individuals can be less likely to understand and reconcile with the concept of homosexuality, particularly when a man can be seen as less "manly" if he can understand and relate. Not that it makes him a homosexual in any way, but the others would draw an opinion about him and tend to distrust his loyalty to them, or question his motives.
That said, I think it should be OK to come out in support of homosexuality. I'm a mostly conservative minded man, but have many homosexual friends and have no problem with their lifestyle. Whatever works for you.
He should be able too. It is still a free country, unless and until the LIEberals take over in '08.
Yes, but they do not have the right to espress them while serving as representative of the United States armed forces. It's part of being a soldier.
He should have kept his opinions private until he retired. I am not a liberal!
because we no longer live in a society where we are asked to tolerate and respect the acts and beliefs of others, we are forced to accept, even embrace, all sorts of vile and immoral behavior or be chastised and called prejudice if you don't.
Added note, I see I've received a thumbs down for my opinion, thank you whom ever for providing my point.
They could before Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" bull mess...before this I can remember a 1SG asking a very feminine male soldier every day if he was gay, and that he did not feel gays should be in his unit...and the gay guy wasn't in the unit very long...
The government is supposed to be elected on behalf of ALL of the people in that country...race, gender, culture, age, sexual preference should have no bearing and it is lawfully binding to protect its citizens as a whole.
Legally (written into the ACT that one signs when entering into employment)....anyone working for the government, speaks/acts on behalf of the government.
If ANY government employer goes around stating in a public forum that they are racist, homophobic, age-ist, mysogonist (hates women), cynical about the homeless etc...IF its in a public forum they will be seen to be speaking on behalf of their employer. Given their employer (who pays them) is not allowed legally or morally to diss his/her citizens....neither is one speaking on their behalf.
It does make him bad at his job, if he cannot carry the basic concept that he is working for the government, he signed up to be working on behalf of the government, its unprofessional, biased to his own beliefs that others do not aspire to and is basically ridiculous given its a proven scientific fact that sex and sexual preference and identity is set within the first few weeks of a fetuses life...way before its born.
Its also been established that left handers come about because twins were at conception but the right hander fetus went missing....so are all left handed people immoral too because they survived or accidently killed the other by taking its nutrients? Are you people so in the dark ages that you dont keep abreast of the times? Watch a few science programs...In the Womb...might be a good start. People want the truth but seeking it from 2000 year old bibles isnt the right place to look.
He's misguided and make the government look like fools.......so yes it does make him bad at his job. He should save his idiocy for family and friends....who probably have the same stupid ideas.
I'm gay and I don't mind people making their own moral judgments-we all must do that. Perhaps his position as a General makes it look like he is speaking for all military which of course he isn't.
He can say whatever he wants. But people are allowed to react the way they want to when he does say!
Sorta like your reply to the Oprah question!
Apparently, one can. Because one did.
I personally think it was improper, because he did not make it clear whether he was talking purely about his personal opinion, or whether he was speaking on behalf of the US military.
The fact that he made the comments at a press conference when in uniform makes it an implied statement of policy on behalf of the entire US military.
And the US military should not be issuing formal policies based on religious dogma.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Questions and Answers: