Posted on 01/04/2011 8:58:11 AM PST by SeekAndFind
And many conservatives cannot stomach Romney, Gingrich, or Huckabee - they are all far from conservative. Romney stands out as particularly vile.
The former; in general, you just can't trust women when it comes to homosexual men; neither can you trust men where homosexual women are concerned.
Another point is that being vague, beating around the bush, not open and clear about POV - this is something that isn’t admirable for any candidate. So I am hoping she clears this up ASAP.
Do you have a source for that, or is it just a concern?
I would find that to be both very troubling and a conflict with guaranteed freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
There’s a big difference between sexual attraction and sexual activity. As I understand it, DADT removes sexual attraction as an issue, but prohibited sexual activity remains under military guidelines.
Surely the chaplain who counsels on the sin of adultery and fornication would be able to apply that to any sexual orientation.
It’s an ugly mess, and I think all of us would wish it to go away. But I still maintain that the root of the problem is in our ever-more-accepting progressive and amoral society and that giving these people a forum through drawn-out debate to argue their case is not good.
I don't think so. It sounds like she is either sympathetic to homosexuals serving in the military but afraid to come out of the closet and say so; I would prefer she state her position instead retweeting Tammy Bruce as her spokesperson; As long as she doesn't run for President or some other office I suppose it doesn't matter much. There are plenty of conservatives who will stand against it. We should beware the cult of personality and stick with policy.
Gotta love the no BS wording in the UCMJ. Will the qu33rs have to have that rewritten, or will they just ignore it?
When you are in my duty section, sleeping in my bunkroom, possibly hotracking (look it up) in my rack, you are NOT inside your own home. If she is soft on DADT, I’m OUT on Sarah Palin.
It’s in one or more of the gazillions of articles that were pinged by me or wagglebee in the last couple or so months. I didn’t bookmark it but could find it if I spent say a half an hour which I don’t have.
“Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2636350/posts
So that would cover chaplains. Ha, the entire homosexual agenda is a direct assault against the freedoms of speech and religious expression. What to speak of association. The military has by necessity taken some of those freedoms away in order for to function, but forced association with mentally ill sex perverts is the last freaking straw. It must be fought by the new R controlled House.
I read the article at the link, and it seems to be talking about soldiers serving side by side, not anyone in a counseling or chaplaincy position whose duties, of necessity, would be different.
I would not consider a chaplain speaking to any soldier about sinful behavior to be “balking”. That’s an entirely different situation from having to take a shower next to someone who is ogling you.
I just don’t know if what you fear is true or not. Apparently time will tell.
Personally, I would have a hard time serving in the military with open homosexuals. That’s the worst part of all this: what it may do to our national security.
On a Trident submarine, the E-6 and below live in 9 man bunkrooms. That means nine bunks (three high on three walls) in <100 square feet. If a sailor has to lie in his rack and listen to a couple of qu33rs slurping on one another 18" over his head, where is his respite? Good order and discipline? Prolly not. Murder, mayhem, loss of self-control? likely. Same problem with putting split tails on subs. The "who's boinking my boy/girl friend while I'm on watch" question will only lead to the total destruction of the finest submariners under God's green oceans. If you've read this far, you should know I have 20 years in Uncle Sam's underwater canoe club.
pissant is pushing the idea that Palin is not conservative enough. There may be a candidate - not Palin, Gingrich, Romney or Huckabee - who is more conservative than Palin. Will Palin lose votes to that more conservative candidate by agreeing with gay agenda statements? Some. I have no idea how many. I’m not saying it’s a big number. It could be 3 voters. She could lose some votes to Huckabee on this particular gay issue, depending where Huckabee is on this.
Here’s how the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines it, wanker
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#925. ART. 125. SODOMY
I don't disagree with that at all. But the thread is about Sarah Palin's opinion and whether it will differ from what most Freepers believe.
I personally think she will try to finesse the issue. Only time will tell.
Your point is well taken, except that I truly didn’t mean for “in private” to apply to bunks or barracks or submarines or any other place on military property. That, in my book, is not private.
I was referring in that sentence to civilian life.
The behavior you describe would surely merit military discipline.
Thanks for your service. I can’t imagine how hard life would be in close quarters on a sub, although I have a close relative who spent a career under the Pacific. Hats off to you and your buddies.
The repeal of DADT voids discipline under military law. The Buttsharks won’t bother rewriting Article 125 of the UCMJ, they will simply ignore it. This is one of those things I quit thinking about with a short prayer, “Lord, Thy will be done...”
You are living in a dream world. On this planet in this country when someone makes a bad decision: have child out of wedlock, drug use, dangerous sexual practices (homosexuality), bring illegal (poor countries) children into this country, I am forced to pay for it by the state and federal government. Were you here for the passing of Obama-care? I didnt see the homosexual rights crowd fighting to cut social spending, in fact they do the opposite, they fight for aids funding.
Agree 100% - That is true Western conservatism. Follows the Code of the West as spoken by John Wayne in the Shootist: “I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and I require the same from them.” In other words, do what you want, just don’t bother me.
BINGO. Pro-gay procrastination
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.