Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley
If you don’t know how to read you’re free to not respond to me.
She said he husband has to pretend that people are not what they are. “Pretend” is a lie in this situation.
I did not say it was a choice or not. I was not addressing that. You interpreted it that way. Some people happen to be Catholic. That’s a choice to. You’re nitpiking because you can’t win on substance.
The military is so PC now. You would not believe the UN-inspired indoctrination we now endure. It’s even worse in the Air Force—they blanch at what Sailors do.
Don't quote the policy to me. I cited it earlier. I've been reading here since 1998. Your attempt to call the gendarmes is hiding behind the fact that you have no good argument.
If a political party has 20 planks in their platform and you agree with one or two of them, that does not mean you support the platform.
Challenging me to find that article has nothing to do with my position or the discussion here. It's fluff you have thrown in as if it has some relevance to make you're position less weak than it is.
When you respond to me, as I know you will, take your best shot. I don't like you or your style, so I won't come back at you.
thanks trisham
Can you argue your position alone or do you always need to call for help?
Well that’s persuasive. Next time I’ll ask you what you think and refrain from taking any opposing views.
Lastly, why should my family members die for their country, while homosexuals are let off the hook by people fighting everything they want to do; albeit something that would help the country defeat it's enemies.
I'm out. I don't do groups. The next time someone wants to engage me in an adult conversation, don't call your posse for help.
********************
Excellent. A wise decision.
??? That’s about as nonsensical a post as I ever saw. You declare something propaganda and that’s ok. Sorry, I forgot that rule: only liberals are allowed to identify propaganda.
The facts remain. Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous.
I can argue just fine. I’m calling attention to your trolling.
What a disturbed post. Seek help.
I have no idea what you are talking about, is there a question in there?
Don't quote the policy to me. I cited it earlier. I've been reading here since 1998. Your attempt to call the gendarmes is hiding behind the fact that you have no good argument.
You didn't cite ANY policy. Your attempted statement of "policy" is refuted by this very thread. I pinged a person who you referred to but did not have the courtesy to ping and I also pinged my "Homosexual Agenda" ping list. Are you trying to tell me that it is not my prerogative to ping one of my ping lists when it is pertinent to the list? As far you "reading here since 1998" statement, so have a lot of leftists.
When you respond to me, as I know you will, take your best shot. I don't like you or your style, so I won't come back at you.
I don't know where you got the impression that I cared one bit whether or not you like me; however, you couldn't be more wrong.
We are conservatives here, we do support each other when we are being attacked by leftists and I have considered xzins to be a FRiend for a long time. Maybe you should wonder why nobody his here supporting YOU.
For what it's worth, a couple times a day I hit the "Homosexual Agenda" keyword link that is at the top of the main forum page (Jim Robinson obviously felt it was important enough to put there because I never asked him to), then I read through the threads and post the ones that are not redundant or not really pertinent. I came to this thread yesterday afternoon when xzins pinged me.
“I did not say it was a choice or not. I was not addressing that. You interpreted it that way. “
By taking the stance that “some people just happen to be gay so they should be allowed to serve” implies that a homosexual’s sexual behaviour is not a choice. It is akin to saying that because they are naturally gay, we should not restrict their ability to join the military. The fact is that homosexuality is a behaviour choice and the fact is that the military excludes many different behaviours, one restricted behaviour is homosexual sex acts.
You are advocating that the military openly accept homosexual behaviour choices. I offered a logical argument that proves, by individual’s desires and homosexual advocacy groups’ agendas, that it is not a natural state of being for any person that choses to be homosexual. I have no issue with any individual’s choice to participate in any behaviour between consenting adults. I do have many issues with forcing the military to accept homosexual behaviour choices.
My own experience in the military gives me the knowledge that it is good policy to not allow homosexual behaviour for military members.
Can you give us some examples of homosexual celebrations that DON'T include nudity and the most vile perversions of every kind? Find me some kind of gay event where the men are in shirts and ties (or even dockers and polo shirts) and where they gather together for discussions or expressions of their "rights."
You can't because no such events exists. Do you know why? Because the ONLY thing their so-called culture is about is the behavior. It's about the perversion and the "shock" factor and the endless search for gratification in the most extreme ways. There are no "normal" gay pride events because they aren't normal.
And no, I don't hate them. My heart breaks for these people who became confused and descended into an emotionally destructive spiral at an early age. It is one of the great tragedies of our day that these people aren't able to get the help they need. Anyone who even offers to provide mental health services or counseling is treated as some kind of criminal. These people suffer from so much pain when it doesn't have to be that way. It is all so very sad.
This seems to be your standard "exit post" when you realize that NOBODY is supporting your leftist attitude on a thread.
I hope you're okay up there with all the traffic. We used to live behind St. Joseph's across from the park.
Troll alert.
When I said that I didn't mean it as natural or choice. I said that earlier, but easy to miss in all the fray.
Don't people have the right to make that choice?
I am not asking the military to make any such stance on their behavior, except that I did say earlier that harassing and assaulting people are already prohibited. So if some one who's a homosexual decides to violate those rules they would be discharged just as you or I would if we did the same thing with the opposite sex. I don't think the military should take a stance on anything that's a choice, religious beliefs, political affiliation, etc.
The military service has changed a lot since King David headed north with his army and it will change again and again.
I just can't see why somebody's sexual preference choice would exclude them from fulfilling their responsibility top their country. In fact, I think it discriminates against heterosexuals to say that only they can die for their country.
As I said in one of my first posts, homosexuals have been in the military forever and we seemed to have done the job? It just seems like the current policy is idiotic. See a guy with a guy off-base and discharge the guy. That's wasteful and unnecessary for my money.
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.