Posted on 07/27/2006 7:39:00 AM PDT by SmithL
No, I am saying the law should be changed. As written, it is archaic and out of date. I'm not sure when, exactly, it was written, but to preclude someone from truly wanting to defend their country is counterproductive. There will, at some point, be produced a "cure" or preventative vaccine for the HIV. If that is your only sticking point, the health issue, would you then reconsider your position, religious matters aside?......
"Some of the attitudes/opinions on here are amazing."
Ya, yours is, you back nothing you say with fact.
"Should we have a DADT policy on race, too? I mean, racial problems probably have some affect on serving. Before you blindly respond to this question, think about it. Think about it well."
Probably have some effect? Have you actually served, I have? I have a feeling you blindly posted the above response.
And here we go again, trying to make sexual choices synonymous with race are we? The people on your side of this debate are so predictable and repetitive. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is innate or not, they still CHOOSE to participate in those behaviors. Race isn't something people have a choice over.
I agree with you there. The article is FoS. If he got an Honorable, that is all that should be on there...
You sound like a complete moron with your statement. Go back to sucking an egg in Houston.
Liberal idiot.
"There will, at some point, be produced a "cure" or preventative vaccine for the HIV."
Again, there are plenty of health risks outside of HIV that soldiers would deal with in the frontlines if they participated in homosexual sex. Anal sex, even if done with a condom has health risks associated with it. And you seem to keep missing the point where hygene is a bit different out there. They can and do go weeks at a time without a shower etc.. I don't want to get graphic on you but I hope you can see where the health problems would arise.
And please don't tell me homosexual sex won't happen if there are openly gay people in the military. Like I pointed out earlier, they already have enough trouble with females and sex on naval ships etc. And I also have anecdotal evidence of it happening in certain field training exercises. The last thing you need in the military is to encourage or normalise homosexual behavior.
"Debating" with you, KOSmunists, and the other assorted DUmmies like you - and this is certainly no "debate" since there is nothing to debate when the Left is only interested in "getting Bush" and supporting America's enemies - is like debating with a rock. It grows pointless and boring very quickly. Have you hugged your favorite terrorist today Liberal?
Freepsville infested by the Left today, for sure.
BTW DUmbocRATS - you lost. Get over it you freaking cry babies.
Dude, you're hilarious. I have this mental image of a grizzled SF guy chewing out some mincing metrosexual.
Don't be naive. Gays don't join to serve and defend a country that oppresses them. They join to 'service' ala recruit, seduce, the men who no longer have easy access to women, their main competition.
When I was in the Army in the '60's the guy would have been beat on, done some Stockade time, and then booted. If I remember correctly it was called 6,6, and a kick.
I bet a Bush hating, anti war, bleeding liberal outed him.
I'd say yes, but it depends on the nature of the felony. If the person had done something stupid as an 18 year old but as a 30 year old was a truly reformed adult, and had no further run-ins with the law, then I have no problem. There are all kinds of felonies, from bad checks to capital murder. The degree of the felony should be considered as well as time and age of the individual. A board of review for enlistees could make the decisions on a case by case basis......
"How "liberating" eh? The moronic vacuous Left, more relevancy always their game."
Don't you love it...
And how about this... lets say gay marriage is legalised in this country in the future. What if 2 Gay siblings wanted to get married? Using the VERY same logic that liberals use, there is no valid reason not to allow the incestuous marriage I described to take place. Their only valid concern would be their kids having "genetic defeats", but that is irelevant considering the couple would be gay. So there you go, gay marriage logic leading directly to incest with no "slippery slope" whatsoever.
Ironically, I bet they would discriminate against the supposed "rights" of the individuals I described.
Isn't it interesting that Red Badger and some others doesn't seem to see the logic that you and I plainly see?
If it is now policy that the suspected homosexual is not supposed to tell, why did he? Can't he trace who he told?
"When I was in the Army in the '60's the guy would have been beat on, done some Stockade time, and then booted. If I remember correctly it was called 6,6, and a kick."
Yeah, and just a few years prior to that the military kept the blacks in the kitchen was regular practice too...la
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.