Posted on 12/18/2010 6:39:44 PM PST by madprof98
How so? I am curious about the language of the repeal. I noted several talking heads in ht emedia saying that the repeal “could” or “may” lead to homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces. If this was a simple repeal, then does that mean that the armed forces revert to the pre-DADT policy?
How about those who practice beastiality? Do people choose to feel aroused by livestock? Should we "celebrate" their perversity?
Would it not be kinder to offer genuine, non PC psychiatric treatment for these disturbed individuals?
They will all gravitate toward the officer ranks... Imagine serving under someone in combat who had it in for you because you wouldn’t “sleep” with him. Or, just as bad, didn’t give a fig for your life because you weren’t one of his favorite butt boys... I’d dessert. Period. Why die for such a system? It wouldn’t be worth saving, much less dying for.
My friend says that his sexual preference simply aren’t the sum total of who he is. He was OK with DADT because you go into the military to fight, not promote your sexuality.
The only reason he told me he was gay was because he decided it would be better than discovering it by accident.
Blow up his Savannah article head & shoulders photo (looks cropped) where he’s behaving himself, you can see a tattoo on his left outside arm.
On his facebook page where he’s acting out, he’s got lots of tattoos.
I think that’s the same guy.
That was my point in posting this in the first place. The AP selected one man as a representative here because, in the view of the writer/editors, he speaks for many. Arbury was not an unknown quantity; he was, as other posts here show, a publicity hound. And his point was the very one you made: I want to re-enlist to pursue a social-change agenda. That agenda is abhorrent to me because it is destructive of our social fabric. Pursuing it in the military will be one step in that destruction--one link, as Arbury put it, in the chain.
God feels the same way you do. :)
I wouldn’t want to be an admitted homosexual and go to any of these Muslim countries...
I hope that the military takes a fall back position that even though congress is allowing openly gay and lesbian people to serve, persons who have sex with members of the same sex shall be discharged.
Jim Robinson, Free Republic's owner and operator already told you you're welcome to leave.
Yogafist: “They can serve their country without constantly reminding us of their lifestyle choice.”
In other words, DADT was a good policy that balanced individual rights with the needs of the military. Sodomy, like adultery, is tolerated in the military so long as it doesn’t affect good order and discipline. Commanders, for example, only get involved when a member’s private sex acts affect work. The same thing applies to other behavioral problems, like alcoholism. If it doesn’t impact work or violate the law, no one needs to act to stop it.
“What’s next? Trannies? Cross Dressers?”
Jihadists...
You must love the treasonous behavior of Pfc Manning who was a tranny. Would it make soldiers feel safer to have others like that protecting them?
No problem. zot.
Well said, CitizenUSA.
Don't forget that in the war zone, military members become "walking blood banks." That means you may get a direct, unscreened "vein to vein" transfusion should you become a casualty and in need of blood.
Homosexual men have a high rate of infections due to their unhealthy sexual practices. These include HIV, Hepatitis C, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and something called "Gay Bowel Disorder."
Yes, the government will have to force everyone to tell...so they can be categorized & counted. The only way to start the lawsuits & offense listing will be if the military knows who is what. So much for privacy...
frag bump
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.