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


1 posted on 12/02/2010 7:56:34 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: ConjunctionJunction

Gay journalists don’t tell of their proclivities and they are among those pushing this issue in the news.


2 posted on 12/02/2010 7:58:34 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Gates was bought and paid for by the Soros/obambi campaign


3 posted on 12/02/2010 7:59:02 AM PST by SF_Redux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction

What I still do not understand to this day is - what gives these turkeys the notion that the rest of the world wants or needs to know how and with whom they have sex? Who gives a “rat’s behind”? (Pun intended? I’m not sure.)

We all know what this is about...and it’s not about “diversity” or “equality” or any other politically correct buzzword they come up with. It’s another way to lessen the strength, morale and character of our military. I hate barack obama. “Commander in chief”, my a$$.


6 posted on 12/02/2010 8:13:02 AM PST by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Put all the queers in the same unit and send them to the area where the fighting is the fiercest. Rapeat until no one is standing.


8 posted on 12/02/2010 8:19:08 AM PST by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction

I’m most interested in the military’s policy (currently) regarding those infected with HIV who are deployed- does it change? Will the soldiers deployed with the HIV virus, but not sick, be required to inform other soldiers deployed with them?

Soldiers living in the, necessarily, tight situation of the barracks, sharing a “head”- will they be allowed to know the HIV status of those who engage in aberant behaviors? How about those seving on ships? submarines?

WHAT are the rights of soldiers and sailors who are NOT gay? How about their families?

“DADT” was a stupid idea...a very “clinton” idea. But THIS one is a whole lot dumber. When one chooses a twisted lifestyle, then they should also accept the consequences.

They are achieving success with the military. Mark this: the traditional and evangelical churches are next.


9 posted on 12/02/2010 8:19:26 AM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction
but suggest that there would be support for repeal of the current policy. Seventeen percent of all service members say repeal would have a positive effect,

I guess that's technically true. I mean 17 percent is, well, 17 percent.

Of course, it would be technically true to say there would be opposition to repeal of the current policy because 22 percent is, well, 22 percent.

Of course understanding that 22 percent is greater than 17 percent would probably require a course in advanced magazine writing.

The opposition is less intense in the Navy and Air Force, where 35 percent and 41 percent say repeal would have a negative effect, but those are still significant minorities. But what is the percent saying it would have a positive effect?

11 posted on 12/02/2010 8:21:42 AM PST by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction

I can say this, when (and I do think it is when, not if) homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, military service will NOT be a career I will urge my sons or daughters to pursue.

There are millions more like me too, as the lion’s share of military personnel come from the most socially conservative parts of the country (read, “the South.”)

When the military gets dominated by sexual perverts, who will defend us?


13 posted on 12/02/2010 8:24:38 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction
I don't believe it. The military members are not ready to repeal DADT.

Military folks and their civil service counterparts have been subjected to such incredible amounts of politically correct required classes/briefings/command direction/etc. they know, absolutely know, what answer they are supposed to provide.

I am pleasantly surprised at how many answered honestly and in the negative. No straight male or female wants a gay superviser/superior in the military with the power they will have over their lives. They already know how difficult it is with both sexes working together already. For the most part, they make it work, but still "stuff" happens.

The stuff that still happens usually gets covered up, but once in awhile it makes it to the mainstream press. For a taste of the future might look like with DADT repealed look here for a USN example and for a USAF example and imagine how these two examples could read. It won't be pretty.

16 posted on 12/02/2010 8:31:49 AM PST by RileyD, nwJ (proud husband, father, and grandfather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction

What a loaded poll question. First of all it asks about the effect of “a” homosexual rather than multiple homosexuals. Then it asks about a generic effectiveness.

How about asking:

If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed and your commanding officer is an open/active homosexual, will it affect your ability to serve in the military and obtain fair promotions if you refuse to engage in homosexual activities?

or

If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed and your unit has a dozen or so open/active homosexuals, will that affect the close interaction that is required for ALL members of a unit (such as a submarine)?

or

If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed, will you willingly join/transfer to/recruit to a group with more homosexuals than another?

or

If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed, do you believe that greater emphasis will be placed on social issues or military ability?


17 posted on 12/02/2010 8:39:45 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction
If DADT is repealed gay servicemen will have no reason to be discreet. They will be as promiscuous as they want to be. Since they score the lion's share of HIV, HIV may spread among the heterosexual population fighting on the battlefield when combat medics start digging around one bloody injury to another. Is the medic going to make sure he changes latex gloves for every soldier he attends in the heat of battle? Will he even tend to a soldier known to be openly homosexual?

Not to mention the drain on military healthcare system and all the other issues that go along with bunking in close quarters.

22 posted on 12/02/2010 9:04:51 AM PST by BufordP ("Drink me if you can't take a joke." -- Kool-aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Wasn’t there a poll last year by the military times that said something to the effect that 70%+ of enlisted men said it would impact their decisions to reenlist?


24 posted on 12/02/2010 9:57:22 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ConjunctionJunction

What the report actually shows is.
The old lets change the numbers game.


26 posted on 12/02/2010 10:02:16 AM PST by Vaduz
[ 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