Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/06/2010 7:52:23 PM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: WebFocus

With all the problems with the economy THIS will be one of their main priorities?


2 posted on 11/06/2010 7:57:40 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. Trying to legitimize depravity...Did anyone really think we’d see this in our lifetime? Legitimizing anal sexual intercourse. It is such a disgusting act it boggles my mind that so many ‘straight’ people accept it as normal.

Please pass the vomit bag.

Is there anything that can stop this ‘lame duck’ blitz? Constitutionally, where do we stand?


3 posted on 11/06/2010 8:01:17 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman (No Compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

While they’re at it, something needs to be done to address marriage within a command, or more specifically within a unit. Let’s take your first example. What if, instead of Sgt A, and privates B,C,D, and E, we have SSG A, and Sgt B and C, each of whom lead a fire team under SSG A. If SSG A is married to Sgt B, and sends Sgt C’s fireteam to flank an enemy emplacement while Sgt B provides cover, what is Sgt C’s team going to think? Or, if on post, SSG A puts Sgt C’s team on trash detail, then what? Alternately, if SSG A puts B’s team on detail, that could stress the relationship and impair both SSG A and Sgt B, and then the whole squad is impaired.

Yes, I know SSGs don’t usually lead squads, but the point is sound.


4 posted on 11/06/2010 8:08:47 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

The arrogance of these people is astounding. Even in defeat they are defiant and determined to shove the last vestiages of their agenda down our throats, the economy and real national problems be damned. I am so sick of these ideologs, I would really rather they just take the rest of the year off and stay out of our faces.


5 posted on 11/06/2010 8:12:41 PM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

They can repeal it, as long as it reverts to the previous policy.


6 posted on 11/06/2010 8:13:42 PM PDT by dfwgator (Texas Rangers -Thanks for a great season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

Will that make them go away?


7 posted on 11/06/2010 8:18:22 PM PDT by Bronzy (We Remembered In November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

Excellent article, not only for its reasoning regarding sexual conduct, but also in its explanation of the stress involved in military service.


8 posted on 11/06/2010 8:21:12 PM PDT by TCH (DON'T BE AN "O-HOLE"! ... DEMAND YOUR STATE ENACT ITS SOVEREIGNTY !When a majority of the American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

DADT, plus Card Check to name a couple they are going to try to do in the “lame duck”.


9 posted on 11/06/2010 8:26:11 PM PDT by ColdOne (Who Knew? MSNBC has ethics? Fired Keif!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

Without replacing it with something else (can you say hot potato) this would merely make policy fall back on the old practice of “if you’re gay you can’t come in, and if you are found gay while in, you get dishonorably discharged.” Surely the Rats know this, and they’re not talking about what’s going to take the place of DADT, and the “gay” community does not seem to be voicing any concern. Weird.


15 posted on 11/06/2010 11:13:25 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus

I’ve said it for many years...the racial analogy drawn by DADT opponents it wrong. A much better analogy is the integration of women into the services. It works, as well as it does, because we recognize men and women are of fundamentally different worth but they behave differently.Marash, nails the issue perfectly. Except for one point, by not beginning to discuss actual polices for addressing behavior, DADT repeal activist are being disloyal to the interest of gay service members.


18 posted on 11/07/2010 1:28:56 AM PDT by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: WebFocus
This is a matter of sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. A person's orientation doesn't matter; his or her actual behavior does.

To the sodomite, there is no difference. The allowance of "orientation" is a license to engage in any kind of sex they grave.

Practically speaking, if sodomites get the military's blessing, they will be a new protected class - powerfully protected. Any attempt a limiting their behavior - "who they are" - will be deemed, again, "discriminatory" and will effectively have an implied pass to break any remaining rules.

Mark my words.

24 posted on 11/08/2010 5:17:41 AM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson