Posted on 12/27/2010 1:38:02 PM PST by scripter
Numerous service members, veterans and concerned citizens have written WND to express their fury about the repeal of the military's ban on open homosexuality. We encourage readers, especially those on active duty, to let us know what you think about allowing open homosexuality in the military and how you plan to respond to the new policy. Following are excerpts from selected letters arranged by topic:
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
To read the article and comments, click Fury over 'gay'-ban repeal
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
The military will end up with a bunch of pansies. The order you’ll hear most often is “Run, Percy, Run!”
Not good.
You can say that the military has no freedom of religion now....and no freedom of conscious—violations of the fundamental principle of this nation. Government will force “reeducation” clinics that will forbid Christians and Jews their belief system.
The idea that people have to acknowledge and accept destructive behavior as a “good”, denies them their fundamental religious rights. The fact that “right and wrong” according to our Constitution was based on the Bible and Natural Law Theory makes this particularly egregious.
There is no way under Natural Law that homosexuality can ever be anything more than a behavior choice and a bad one at most. Morality is all about deciding good and bad behavior and Natural Law was that basis. Cicero said that laws that go against Natural Law and God’s Laws are unjust. Locke thoroughly agreed.
This repeal is unjust and illegal according to our Constitution and 1st Amendment Rights.
although we have always been a military family, no longer will we be. I refuse to have my young people subjected to moral breakdow in the military, sodomy, Godlessness and the diseases which goes with it.
Wait to real stories about the “sensitivity” training start to come out.
Huh...I thought they didn’t care...according to a ‘survey’
That is not what he said.
Start watching at 5:14 minutes
Thank you for posting this - I am extremely busy today and can’t really do any pinging. Just maintaining a bit of contact with FR via one of many open windows.
Here’s links to a few articles explaining why homosexuals are detrimental to military readiness and moral, in case anyone needs any ammo:
Ten Reasons to Oppose an “LGBT Law” or Policy for the Military
The Center for Military Readiness ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608259/posts
Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.
The Center for Military Readiness ^ | 3/22/2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608228/posts
Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High
FRC ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608306/posts
In Support the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military
CMR ^ | July 23, 2008 | Elaine Donnelly
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608370/posts
“THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% OF SERVICE MEMBERS REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS - 1 IN 4 WOULD QUIT”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635458/posts
“MILITARY: Marines lead opposition to repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635350/posts
“Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2636350/posts
Part of the problem is nobody in power wants to discuss the facts.
Let the consciousness raising begin.
Weakness is just as bad if not worse in a sense, than outright evil.
bookmark
“THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% OF SERVICE MEMBERS REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS - 1 IN 4 WOULD QUIT”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635458/posts
“MILITARY: Marines lead opposition to repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635350/posts
Oh it will happen...when I was in the service, in the 1970s, 80s and 90s..we had what we called HumRel ( human relations training) and you can guess what that was all about..it had to do with race relations.
Cultural Marxism is finally finishing off the Christian paradigm that existed in the United States for hundreds of years. The German philosophers destroyed the Christian paradigm in Europe and brought this nihilism to America to destroy the two things that made us independent and free: Family and Christianity.
This is intentional to kill America. We will cease being good and exceptional and evolve into the pagan, atheists hell on earth. The Weimar Republic was an example of this orgastic homosexualism that led to the SS troops and the brutality that can only emanate from godless, immorality—homosexuality.
It was the pagan paradigm in Greek and Rome that led to rampant pederasty and second class citizenship for women and slavery.
It is evil, plain and simple, and I thank God my son got out before that Marxist-in Chief took office. Godless atheists all out to destroy this country and create a one-world-government utopia (for only those ruling elite few, of course). The stupid useful idiots will all be serfs.
How I loved our military and Patton. My father was in WWII, my brothers in Vietnam and son in Afghanistan. My 2nd cousin fought with Patton. I spit on that Marxist in Chief. They are ruining a moral military—one which has surpassed all other militaries because of the Christianity that dominated. Patton was made ill by the atheist Russian military and the Odin-worshipping homosexual SS troops who used boys in the Hitler Youth. I won’t even get into the Greek pederasty and initiating young boys into their homosexual military. Absolutely sick, evil cultures.
Not good.
The Church has already spoken to the issue specifically as recently as July 22, 1992 when the the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith issued this revised document. Here is an excerpt; Note: #11.
II. Applications
10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
14. The "sexual orientation" of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be "either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing" (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to "manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws" (cf. No. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that "any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people ... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (cf. No. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.
15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. No. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the) homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as "family" participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. No. 9)?
16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17).
The Catholic Church might seize the opportunity making inroads in this important new community and install the patron saint of interior design.
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.