Posted on 09/29/2011 2:24:49 PM PDT by Lmo56
With homosexuals now able to serve openly in the military, the gay rights movement’s next battleground is to persuade the Obama administration to end the armed forces’ ban on “transgenders,” a group that includes transsexuals and cross-dressers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Have you read any comments on FR targetting the children of Army commanders? And what is your POV on homosexuals in the military? Another point is that anything on FR is fuel to the fire of liberals' anger and insanity. You want people on FR to tone it down so that liberals won't hate us? Good luck.
SO you think people on FR are the equivalent of Black Panthers and SDS???:
However, think back to the 1960s and early 1970s when conservatives quite correctly targeted moderately liberal Democrats for quiet support and association with groups like Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Panthers, and making unwise comments which indicated they supported the radical agendas of those groups.
Again, if you think by sounding more like liberals that liberals will like "us" or conservatives, you're in la la land. And now, there are no moderate Dems. Unfortuantely, there are a lot of RINOs.
think that is a good idea about putting some info together and maybe having a sticky or something for people to read.
so long as they’re facts the homo’s can do noting but resort to their usual name calling.
As far as those being silent due to ignorance then you are correct.
Look at how many say well it is just marriage, well it is just civil unions, well they have served for a long time in the military
The next step is DOMA as they now will say they can fight and die but not be married.
It is a step to a bigger agenda and some do not understand this and only see one issue like marriage .
God will not hold us guiltless. May He have mercy on us.
The Tea Party was born out of the frustration of conservatives with our political “leaders”. And still, they don’t get it, they want to hijack it for their own purposes thinking to take advantage of the movement to regain power.
The loss in 2010 of oldline Republicans was not enough of a message for them. We must keep voting them out at the same rate as the disastrous lib/progressives.
We must not tire, we must not falter and we must not fail.
agreed it is a disgrace how the elitist GOP moved in on the tea party.
Huntsman was asked about the tea party and he replied well I agree on lots of their platform, I believe in the 2nd amendment etc.
HUH tea party is not about guns you clown.
I want men and women who will stand up to these kind of homosexual agenda, I want men and women who have guts to say no to the left and tell the old boys to pack up and piss off.
Conservatism isn’;t just fiscal, it is being conservative fiscal and socially, where we think families are a mom and dad or where traditional values have worked for generations and we are fed up of them being attacked to destroy this country
“Have you read any comments on FR targetting the children of Army commanders?”
Read post 174: “Then realize,, when they are overseas, they have a huge advantage in logistics. Not so much here. What happens when the local Army commander gets a letter with photos of his children walking into a school. The predator factory, the missile factory, the F-16 pilots live in town and are well known,,etc etc. Our military is simply not designed to fight on TOP of its logistical tail. What happens when conservative heavy formations like Marines and rangers line up against a Treasonous military? Remember the underground SF newspaper “the resister”?”
There's more than one way that comment could be interpreted. Maybe the poster didn't mean his comment to advocate targeting the children of Army commanders... I certainly hope he didn't. However, we can assume that if comments like that get into the hands of the liberals, they will interpret them in the worst possible way.
That's why we need to be careful what we say and how we say it. Talking about “treasonous military” and making comments like that about the children of Army commanders is, especially in the current political climate, both unnecessary and unwise.
201 posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 10:03:49 AM by little jeremiah:
“And what is your POV on homosexuals in the military?”
Fair question, Little Jeremiah, about my point of view on homosexuals in the military.
I have a two-decades-long history of fighting the ordination of practicing homosexuals in a church context. Any unrepentant practicing homosexual should be excommunicated from the church... period. Realistically speaking I probably would oppose the ordination of a celibate homosexual in virtually all cases based on other biblical passages; perhaps the only exception I could imagine would be serving in an ex-gay ministry.
I realize that doesn't directly answer your question about homosexuals in the military, but I'm raising this to point out that I'm not a Johnny-Come-Lately to the issue of homosexuality. I've been fighting those battles for a very long time, and I have a very public track record of opposing homosexuals in church office that is much longer than my history of opposing homosexuals in the military, simply because prior to 9/11, military-related issues simply weren't on my radar screen of issues that personally affected me.
I now live and work outside Fort Leonard Wood (and before that, Cannon Air Force Base) and I've seen firsthand the problems caused by sexual perversion.
Based on what I've seen, I strongly oppose allowing homosexuals to serve in the military due to the necessary close quarters in which military members must live, as well as the documented rampant promiscuity of homosexuals which poses a risk to unit cohesion as well as creating a substantial security risk. The fact that the Wikileaker was a homosexual ought to be a warning of the risks. And before someone raises the issue, I am very much aware of the problems caused by heterosexual promiscuity in the military — there may be very little we can do about unmarried soldiers, but with those who are married, adultery is still a court-martial offense and we ought to prosecute it more aggressively because it shows a great deal about someone’s inherent integrity, or lack thereof.
While there are good practical reasons to object to homosexuals in uniform, my opposition is based primarily on religious rather than pragmatic grounds. In other words, even if someone could show me that allowing homosexuals to serve in the military won't harm good order and discipline (and I believe it definitely would) it wouldn't make much difference to me. Homosexuality is perversion, plain and simple, and pushing homosexuality in the military is part of a broader gay agenda trying to normalize in society what God forbids.
201 posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 10:03:49 AM by little jeremiah:
“Another point is that anything on FR is fuel to the fire of liberals’ anger and insanity. You want people on FR to tone it down so that liberals won't hate us? Good luck. ... Again, if you think by sounding more like liberals that liberals will like “us” or conservatives, you're in la la land. And now, there are no moderate Dems. Unfortuantely, there are a lot of RINOs.”
I deal with liberals constantly. I'm well aware that for the majority, they're beyond hope, though on some individual issues it may be possible to get their votes for specific situations. I don't know where you live, but down here in the South there are still a fair number of “Yellow Dog Democrats” who can easily be persuaded to vote for a conservative Republican, and who should long ago have left the Democratic Party but for whatever reason won't do so, at least not yet.
The goal isn't to get liberals to like us. The goal is to avoid unnecessary offense which **WILL** antagonize the people we need to get President Obama out of office.
There is no need to be talking about secession. We aren't even close to that point today. We're probably going to win the 2012 presidential election, and our focus needs to be on winning a large enough margin of seats in the House and the Senate that it's politically possible to make massive cuts in non-defense spending so we can keep our country out of bankruptcy.
Why, when it looks like we're going win, and win big, would be possibly want to be saying things that could get picked up by Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Democratic Underground and get used to paint all conservatives as neo-Confederates advocating secession?
201 posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 10:03:49 AM by little jeremiah:
“SO you think people on FR are the equivalent of Black Panthers and SDS???”
No, I don't think the vast majority of people on Free Republic are anything like SDS or the Black Panthers. I do believe the tiny minority of people advocating neo-Confederate secession represent a conservative version of the radical extremists of the 1960s and 1970s.
People advocating secession need to be opposed by conservatives who value the United States, just as we demanded that the “New Left” of the 1960s and 1970s take concrete steps to distance themselves from SDS, the Black Panthers, and similar groups.
Obviously, support for the United States isn't God-ordained. Love for America and love for God are not identical; in extreme situations, being a good Christian citizen of Stalin's Soviet Union or a good Christian citizen of Mao's China means Christians must make difficult decisions just as had to be faced by good Christian citizens of the Roman Empire. I don't live in that situation and I'm not going to try to tell people who are facing outright government persecution for their faith what they should do, and I'm especially not going to tell them they're making wrong decisions when I haven't walked in their shoes.
But given our current political situation, and the shoes we are walking in here in America, talk of secession does nothing but hurt the conservative movement.
The sooner we as conservatives make clear that secessionists do not speak for us, the better.
Thank you for your reply - I will read carefully later since I am engaged at the moment.
I have a lot of material in files and access to more, facts like diease rates, lists of common diseases, rates of violence/promiscuity/drug and alcohol abuse etc. Other stuff as well. I am just short of time right now to put it together in a reasonably clear and short way.
If you or anyone else would like to try to make something of the info I could put together right now, let me know. I can get a lot of info together quickly but can’t re-do it to make it shorter and easily readable by people who don’t know much, for a while.
no I have time and then I can put it on a flash drive and then g over the info to use in what mostly becomes arguments with the ignorant.
We are the majority who oppose the homosexual agenda,every state which has voted has proved this spo let us all not be quiet but speak up
There is a reason to believe some homosexuality is a genetic defect. Irving Bieber of the University of Houston did a long study in the 1950's and early 1960's of the etiology of homosexuality and its susceptibility to "repair" by psychotherapy. In the early 50's some workers thought psychotherapy would be the key.
Bieber, at the end of his study *, concluded that about 30% of homosexual men (his study did not address women) were totally unreachable by psychotherapeutic methods; nowadays they would be called essentially homosexual.
Others responded in varying degrees to psychotherapy, which when it began to be practiced professionally (as opposed to experimentally) was called reparative therapy. Reparative therapy does not change the sexual orientation of "essentially" (or "biologically") homosexual men.
The significance of Bieber's work is that it suggests strongly that 70% of homosexual men are to some degree reachable by psychotherapy, and that is why militant homosexuals like Evan Wolfson, longtime of-counsel with Lambda Legal to many of the sodomy-case and "single-sex marriage" </cant> litigators of the last 30 years, have insisted that all homosexuals are "essential", because they were running a (false) analogy to skin color and race, and asking for decisions favoring their clients that would parallel the decisions that were the foundation of the Civil Rights Movement.
The "nurture" factor in homosexuality -- acculturation, sexualization, perversion -- is actually dominant among men (it's almost total among women, where very, very few women are "essentially" gay, and almost all lesbians are sexualized during youth by older lesbians), and it militates against the "essentialist" argument advanced by movement gays in their march to the Supreme Court, where it was always their strategy to argue to the Court, "as with black Americans, so with us -- we are gay, and cannot change our spots!" That is a lie, but all they needed was for Associate Justice Kennedy to buy it in the Lawrence case in 2003. As in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the infamous reconsideration of Roe vs. Wade, he was the liberals' fifth vote.
*Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, by Irving Bieber (lead author), Harvey J. Dain, Paul R. Dince, Marvin G. Drellich, Henry G. Grand, Ralph H. Gundlach, Malvina W. Kremer, Alfred H. Rifkin, Cornelia B. Wilbur, and Toby B. Bieber. New York, 1962 (second printing), Basic Books.
Great!!!! That would be a wonderful help. I will put useful info together as soon as possible. I will freepmail you.
Few here know and those who know are reluctant to admit just how amoral and ethically challenged many in the upper ranks of the US armed forces are.
If you want to view a classic milicrat career profile look up Gen Jones the firmer CMC who was BO’s National Security Adviser and compare his biography to that of his uncle who was a WW2-Korea- VN generation officer.
Military ceremonies are mandatory military formations. Unless the unit leadership is going to exclude all non-Christians from the event (which would be viewed as bigoted in the first place), they will need to provide a non-denominational prayer that does not infringe on those that are required to attend and hold non-Christian beliefs (or not have a Chaplain attend at all).
I doubt you'd be so supportive if the military commander was a Muslim and had an imam invoke prayers to Allah in such events.
We should not allow muslims in the military.
I thought Greece was the most sheep-loving nation on Earth...
:-P
And Hindus? Jews? Buddhists? Shintoists?
There are many religions in the military. Requiring them to attend prayers of a religion they don’t believe in is wrong.
Why can’t they just ignore the prayers? How does it hurt them? Oh yeah, they might be offended. Where is the right to not be offended? I’m deeply offended every time I hear about the death of another soldier at the hands of muslims.
Nearly everything is waiverable in the modern military if the skills you possess are in-demand.
That was my argument with the Muslim prayer and your response was that Muslims shouldn’t be in the military.
I guess we could make the official prayers for the military Shinto. I’m sure that you’ll be fine with that. After all, why can’t Christians just ignore the prayers? How does it hurt them? Yeah, Christians might be offended, but where is the right to not be offended?
That doesn't make any sense and never did, but it avoided creating an explosion of anger a half-century ago when an outright ban on public prayer at official gatherings would have antagonized an American public which was still overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian in its views. Today, such a ban would probably succeed if the Supreme Court tried to impose it.
Sooner or later the Supreme Court will either decide that chaplains, pastors and private individuals praying at public events have a First Amendment right to do so and the content of their prayers is no business of the government (the choice I prefer) or bar public prayers entirely by arguing that the government endorses religion by asking people to offer public prayers.
The “solemnization” argument makes no sense and never did. All it does is lead to bans on prayer at events like football games which are not “solemn” but at which there is a much greater reason to pray for the safety of the prayers than a lot of other events where prayers get offered.
And by the way, for gogogodzilla, if the incoming Army officer at a change-of-command ceremony happens to be a Shinto believer, I would have no problem with him having a Shinto ceremony to “invest him with the warrior spirits of his ancestors” or whatever happens at Shinto ceremonies. This isn't World War II, we're not at war with Japan, and if somebody’s Shinto beliefs motivate them to fight Islamofascists, that's perfectly fine with me.
I would have a lot more problems with a committed Muslim fundamentalist serving in the American military under current conditions. Security screenings being what they are (or should be), especially given problems with several high-profile Muslim officers in the U.S. Army, any seriously committed Muslim fundamentalist is going to have real problems. If a Muslim soldier believes he can serve in the U.S. Army and fight Islamofascists, I think he's extremely inconsistent but I see no legal way to bar someone like that from military service.
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.