Replies

The real problem is those who say they’re on our side but are unprincipled and constantly undermine us.

Absolutely!

To put it another way, the problem isn't with the Romans, but with the Judas Iscariots.

This thread is very revealing. I'm still somewhat of a newbie, but I'm stunned at all the cowardly FReepers that have come out of the woodwork on this thread. These cowards cringe and tremble at the thought of being called "homophobic," yet I'm sure they must understand that to take a pass at this battle against homosexualism in the military means that the last institution in America that honors Judeo-Christian values is lost.

I have to agree with some of the people who have been zotted on this thread, but for the opposite reason. This thread is indeed sad, but only because so few Americans (apparently) are willing to vocally defend Christian values and our Christian heritage on a public forum.

I thank God for everyone on this thread who is bold enough to defend America's Christian heritage on this thread.

I've got your back!

To put it another way, the problem isn't with the Romans, but with the Judas Iscariots.

Very well said. IOW, it's not the enemy who wears the enemy country's uniform, it's the guy wearing the same uniform you're wearing who sympathizes with the guys on the other side and never fights hard, and secretly assists the enemy. They're much worse. They're called "traitors".

This issue is actually so crisp and clear, it shouldn't require any hand-wringing. The homosexual agenda is not conservative by any stretch and it requires the stretching and abuse of the Constitution to enact, although that's been par for the course since 1913 through present day.

I'm not interested whether homosexuals are born, made, recruited or choose to be homosexuals, the fact remains that modern day homosexuals have chosen to vociferously define themselves by their sexual behavior not their "alternative lifestyle", and they're demanding special rights to accommodate their deviant behavior.

Given that polygamists were not allowed to redefine marriage to suit themselves, why should homosexuals be allowed to? You know that with the repeal of DADT, that homosexual marriage is the next item on the agenda. The Marxist addressed it today, although he called it 'gay marriage' and I refuse to use their verbiage. Words are supposed to have meaning, so let's use a word that has meaning: homosexual, NOT gay.

These cowards cringe and tremble at the thought of being called "homophobic," yet I'm sure they must understand that to take a pass at this battle against homosexualism in the military means that the last institution in America that honors Judeo-Christian values is lost.

Nicely stated.