Posted on 09/23/2011 5:08:35 PM PDT by RetSignman
Excellent book, every conservative should read it. And every liberal, maybe a few would learn something.
“You equated adultery and homosexuality, not me.”
Not exactly true. All homosexuality is adultery. Not all adultery is homosexuality. The fact is that certain kinds of adultery, especially once accepted by society, are more damaging than others. We live in an age when the extremes of adultery are, more and more, being accepted as “normal.” They are not; and they never will be. Period. Clear enough!
However, I have lived long enough to know that there are quite a few people with very, very perverse sexual inclinations. As I said before, some fight them and some give in to them and try to justify them. The ones who give in and try to justify must be resisted, because what they do is to train others by their example to accept the abnormal as normal, when it is not. DADT, if rightly applied, would simply mean that one is to do one’s duty irrespective of their inclination. If they cannot, then they should be removed from the armed forces of the United States. Clearly, there are those presently in the armed forces who haven’t accepted this, and so have remained in the armed forces under false pretenses, and they have been used by certain politicians to gain political advantage even though it clearly is harming the country. This is wrong. And I hope that the whole issue will be re-examined and changed.
But to be homosexually inclined is one thing. To be homosexually active and encouraging of others to do similarly is something else. Homosexuality will never be moral, no matter how large a percentage of people say it is. In the same way to be a serial adulterer with the opposite sex will never be moral, no matter how many say otherwise. But unless we are going to become mind police, we can do nothing other than go by behavior and not inclination. As I understand it DADT means don’t ask if you think someone may be so inclined. It doesn’t mean don’t say anything if someone is acting out his inclinations. If I am wrong in this, I will take correction from someone who knows better, someone serving or having recently served in the armed forces who grasps what it is that I am saying.
You see, I am actually trying to keep this subject within the bounds of its proper application and not widen it so that we are no longer talking about the subject that has been raised in this thread. Do you understand that?
I am in favor of homosexuality? No. Do I think that homosexuality is somehow no worse in its damage to society than pedestrian varieties of adultery? No. Do I recognize the deep, ingrained problem of sin and corruption in all people? Yes. Do I also recognize the difference between God’s insight, understanding and authority to deal with all human failings and sins and man’s rather limited ability? Yes. Therein lies the problem.
As far as promoting the homosexual agenda in a stealth manner goes, you are beneath contempt to have suggested such a thing when no such evidence was present. Also, I don’t think I “agreed with some guy who said that homosexuality in the military caused no problems.” I don’t think he said that. I think he said that those who did their duty and followed the rules were left alone, even though everyone knew of their inclinations. If I am wrong in this understanding, let him correct me, not you.
In the same way, I knew at work years ago who was homosexual and who was not. As long as it didn’t interfere with their job performance or that of others, I left it alone. When that line was crossed, it was another thing entirely.
this is why we need full control for the next 4 years to overturn this pathetic piece of mental sickness law which was forced on to the majority normal marines and soldiers.
this is why we need full control for the next 4 years to overturn this pathetic piece of mental sickness law which was forced on to the majority normal marines and soldiers.
you can guarantee that Romney and Perry will not do anything
you know 15 years ago I had no problem with these kind of people as they said they wanted to keep private etc,then it started with them having sex in public, parades, now in the schools, tried boy scouts and now the military
Now I find myself not just thinking they need help but I hate their agenda.
I couldn’t write down here what I really think of their agenda
your work and the military are different.
I served and I know of not one person who wants these kind of mentally sick people but now if you think it is normal to start stabbing another man up his crap hole or a woman to wear a strap on and pretend she is a man then
[I don’t think he said that. I think he said that those who did their duty and followed the rules were left alone, even though everyone knew of their inclinations. If I am wrong in this understanding, let him correct me, not you.]
If that is in reference to my previous post...[When I served in the military, we knew there were homosexuals in our ranks and you know what happened to them?
Nothing, they went about their jobs and we went about ours.]
There is no correction needed. Comradeship in the military is essential for many reasons but paramount is to be able operate effectively as a unit. If ‘active’ homosexual activity is condoned, the unit will be shattered.
The militant homosexual agenda within the ranks of our military has gained a foothold sanctioned and inspired from the very top of its structure.
From this point on, it’s totally in the hands of our top MILITARY officers to enforce the existing Department of Defense regulations without fear or intimidation.
All of them raised their hands and swore allegiance to protect our Republic against foreign AND domestic enemies.
If they choose to side step the enforcement of UCMJ Regulations and Code of Conduct out of fear of retribution, they should remove their uniforms they have dishonored and pursue a life free obligations and responsibility.
Any man who will pass up the finest thing God made in favor of another man’s ass is bound to be wrong about other things as well.
Give them their demands at playing they are men and make them live with the consequence.”
This idea has come up a lot on this thread. The problem with it is that we already have gays in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. One stationed in Iraq even asked a question at the GOP debate the other night.
The idea that gays will simply turn sissy and run away from the rigors of the military is not one we should hang all our hope on. There are better hopes than that.
RetSignman, yes, it was a reference to your post. And from what you just wrote it appears that I did not misunderstand you ... nor do I disagree with a single thing you just wrote. You write understandably and sensibly.
It would truly be a shame to see a leftist and indulgent agenda, imposed from the top, ruin what is the finest fighting force in the world and one dedicated to defending its nation and the principles on which it was founded and must continue to stand. Thank you for your service, sir, and your continued involvement.
“but now if you think it is normal to start stabbing another man up his crap hole or a woman to wear a strap on and pretend she is a man then”
Of course I never said that. In fact, I said just the opposite. Good day to you.
Your blather is pointless. Bone smoking butt pirates have no business in the military.
Since I have been helping run or running by myself the Homosexual Agenda ping list for 10 years on FR, not only have I read a tremendous amount about the homosexual agenda and the "gay" life, I have also heard from a large number of former and currently serving military.
Every one of them (except one guy who was a leftist who got banned, and seems to be back) said that homosexuals in the military are a HUGE FREAKING PROBLEM but the problem got MUCH WORSE under DADT. Because the homosexuals felt freer to "be themselves". How can someone who is mentally ill perform well in the military? They cannot. Someone who succumbs to adultery is commiting a sin, and according to the military code, a crime. But they are not by definition mentally ill.
Homosexuals, OTOH, are by definition mentally ill. IT is a psychological sickness, as well as a sin, and still currently, a crime in the military.
Now homosexual agenda pushers are pushing for trasnsgenders in the military. They will never stop. I know what I am talking about and you do not. Or you are promoting the agenda by stealth.
Also, I don’t think I “agreed with some guy who said that homosexuality in the military caused no problems.” I don’t think he said that. I think he said that those who did their duty and followed the rules were left alone, even though everyone knew of their inclinations. If I am wrong in this understanding, let him correct me, not you.
He said that the homosexuals caused no problems and you agreed with him. Countless freepers have commented on the threads and privately to me the grave and terrible problems homosexuals have caused in the military. One of the links I posted details that homosexuals cause 2/3 of the sexual offenses already - this is before they are now allowed openly. They are well known for forcing themselves on normal men and women.
You cannot deny this because the facts show me to be right and you to be wrong. Again if you are well meaning but ignorant I am sorry, but I am so angered and disgusted at the homosexual agneda destroying and perverting our schoolchildren, military and so many other aspects of our life - including our Constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and association - that I see great danger ahead. If you do not, either you need to open your eyes and learn, or you are part of the problem.
Well, little jeremiah, there is an old saying: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.” And you just keep on pounding. I did not say that homosexuals in the military were not a problem. And I was not commenting on what the homosexual agenda has been up to and how it may have been using/misusing/abusing DADT. Nor do I question any of the data you raise. Believe it or not, I am neither stupid nor naive. Nor am I in support of homosexuality in the military or anywhere else. It is sin. It is destructive. It is self-absorbed, the very opposite of the virtue that any unit of the armed forces needs for its individual members to survive and for its mission to succeed. Clear?
But I see that you either are unable to observe distinctions in argumentation or are choosing deliberately to ignore them, and thus you go hammering away at a nail that isn’t there. So, I see continued discussion with you as pointless.
Your blather is pointless.
I notice that in the last few days a lot of people on FR are now promoting homosexuals in the military in a sort of semi-stealth manner. One got zotted yesterday, flowerplough. More will as they reveal their actual intent.
Yeah, yeah, pound away. Your braying is pointless and your manners boorish.
Occasionally, try to read what people say.
Feel free not to reply.
I read every word you wrote, carefully.
Accusing my manner instead of my actual points is odd.
I wrote:
“DADT, if rightly applied, would simply mean that one is to do one’s duty irrespective of their inclination. If they cannot, then they should be removed from the armed forces of the United States. Clearly, there are those presently in the armed forces who haven’t accepted this, and so have remained in the armed forces under false pretenses, and they have been used by certain politicians to gain political advantage even though it clearly is harming the country. This is wrong. And I hope that the whole issue will be re-examined and changed.”
You didn’t respond to that very clear point. Instead you accused me of saying the opposite. That isn’t just odd, it’s dishonest.
You misrepresent your own statements, on this very thread.
Blowing smoke is all you’re doing. Anyone can read just your comments, and mind, up this thread and see what you’re doing. Up the thread you stated that the old “Ask, tell and out the door if wrong answer” was destructive!
DADT which was implement and pushed by Clinton - a leftist piece of scum - was meant to ease the way into what we have now - open sexual perverts in the military. Even under DADT there have been tremendous problems, which you ignore.
And your method of “debate” is obfuscate, blow smoke, and when the truth is pointed out, call me names.
Typical, SOP, and I’ve seen it plenty of times over the years on FR.
I scanned over several pages of your comments and realize that other than this little thread, you have posted exclusively on religion topics for at least the last couple of years. So that is your main interest here on FR and apparently you know very little about homosexuality or the agenda.
So, my advice to you would be to study up, and you may learn something about it. If it’s not a topic that interests you, so be it. It should interest every conservative, since the agenda means the destruction of our Constitutionally protected freedoms of speech, religion and association. For starters.
“Where are the Rs? Why are they dead silent? Words fail me.”
At least Santorum had the spine to speak out at the last debate. Kudos to him.
Romney wouldn’t. I’m not as pessimistic about Perry. His passion for states’ rights got him misconscrewed in his initial comments about New York. States’ rights don’t mean squat to a national military force, which falls under the Federal aegis alone.
Santorum is one of the few who stands up for the military and Truth.
“Santorum is one of the few who stands up for the military and Truth.”
Amen to that. God Bless him! (you too!)
Thank you! It’s amazing how people who know the truth are chicken. Cowardice has gotten us where we are.
I believe you are thinking of the SA, the Brownshirted Storm Troopers. The SS were expected to be breeders. This isn’t to say there weren’t fruits in it. Its just that it was the SA that was loaded with them.
You are right and I was wrong. Thanks for the correction!
You’re welcome.
“Thank you! It’s amazing how people who know the truth are chicken. Cowardice has gotten us where we are.”
Since the repeal was inacted on 20 Sept...the various service chiefs sent out memos saying it was a “good” thing and no one was supposed to be hurt by it...blah, blah, blah.
Since then, I haven’t heard anyone speak about it. Either the average “Joe” doesn’t really care or they are afraid to say anything (apathy on morality is pretty high). Right now, the repeal only allows the homosexuals to be open about their lifestyle, but doesn’t give them spousal rights. They are already, in the press, screaming for spousal privileges. I have yet to meet anyone that is being “open” about their sex life...other than the normal bragging heterosexual playboy players.
In the military, there is already a constant problem of heterosexual misconduct....we just don’t need this problem.
Recently on one thread or other someone (wish I could remember, I could look back and find it easily) posted the info that 2/3 of sexual misconduct or crimes actually, in the military, are already homosexual in nature.
Now what will happen...
This is a case where "a few bad apples will spoil the whole bunch". Yes, there are gays who can excel as soldiers, under the discipline of DADT - but openly gay? No way.
Now operational readiness is going to suffer while somebody is checking on their butt-buddy.
[Now operational readiness is going to suffer...]
Not if EXISTING military directives are ENFORCED and followed. (chect the link I supplied to the current directives)
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.