Private Fabulous reporting for duty,sweetie!
Posted on 05/12/2014 8:54:57 AM PDT by armydawg505
WASHINGTON (AP) — The prohibition on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military "continually should be reviewed," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Sunday.
Chuck Hagel is open to reviewing military's ban on transgender people The Week (RSS)
A transgender individual is someone who has acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or presents themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
A transgender individual is someone who has acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or presents themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.
_____________________________________
and the United States military must validate this pretense because ???
Has the UCMJ been changed to accommodate the queers yet?
Because the left’s wet dream is to transform the military into a freak show with big guns.....
Private Fabulous reporting for duty,sweetie!
Yeah, lets put people in the military who already have expensive preexisting medical issues that won’t go away ever. (Not to mention the mental issues)
Well,Article 69 will certainly have to be rewritten.
I thought Obama disliked bitter Klingers...
What a farce. Everyone knows where it’s headed.
Gotta be one of the real reasons they want to slash the commissary funding, cut housing allowances and so forth. Decry the traditional compensation components provided to normal service members and their families as “benefits we can no longer afford”, then promote this filthy social experiment insanity.
Embrace all manner of deviants as normal, integrate them into the military *chain of command*, then punish service members for being intolerant and repulsed by the new normal. Because after all, a deployed soldier should have zero stress issues when these freaks move into their military family housing neighborhoods and next door to their wives and kids. Complain and end up on some list. Forced to move to get away from entitled, government-approved weirdos who are “out” and itching for a dust-up or worse? Well, that’s one way to passively open up the housing availability to dysfunctional creeps.
925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Because the left’s wet dream is to transform the military into a freak show with big guns.....
No, they’ll have plenty of guns to use against their own people. Do not doubt that they will, either.
Never having run afoul of the UCMJ during my stellar Army career (cough,cough) I’m not at all familiar with its provisions.But reading Article 125 I wonder how the homo-perverts currently in the Armed Forces avoid court martial.
Were it not for the fact that Klinger actually liked women I'd nominate this for the FR Post Of The Day award. ;-)
UCMJ punishes BEHAVIOR, not the proclivity. When I enlisted a form we all had to fill out had a laundry list of medical disorders to check yes/no on; one was homosexual tendencies. I assume that form went away with the advent of DA/DT.
Homosexuals who behave themselves won't have a problem.
"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision
of what is before them, glory and danger alike,
and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it."~Thucydides
Please support Free Republic
click the pic
Understood.However,*every* time a homo-pervert engages in a "carnal" act he/she/it engages in an "unnatural" one.OTOH,while it's possible for a normal person to engage in such an act (depending on how the UCMJ defines "unnatural") it's also possible for such a person to engage in a "natural" carnal act.
So the only way a homo-pervert avoids violating Article 125 is to remain fully celibate during his/her/its enlistment.And,particularly if DoD policy is to now recognize homo-pervert "marriage" of uniformed members of the military (performed in the Gay State,for example),how likely is *that*?
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.
