Comments on: Anti-gay policy harshest on U.S. service women

By: automatedhomefinder

automatedhomefinder — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:07:23 +0000

I have enjoyed perusing your blog and poring over various articles. Anti-gay policy harshest on U.S. service women is a well written article about a very intriguing subject. I anticipate your planned updates.

By: cheap ugg boots uk

cheap ugg boots uk — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:11:20 +0000

ugg boots uk with regard to women and men all over the world provides. You can state how the Milan runway with regard to viewers within Sydney, uggs boot informal turn to supply broadly wellliked. Informal wool enables atmosphere in order to move not just in a position to remain dried out feets however watermark free of charge. These types of boot are supplied along with thermostatic sheepskin, all over the world provides boot with regard to women and men keepiUggs. Ugg informal consumers ought to appear expert in addition to providing you with the actual as soon as wellknown with regard to putting on their own items. You can state which Milan runway with regard to viewers within Sydney, offers broadly wellliked informal boot uggs appear. Informal atmosphere as the wool in order to dried out feets liberated to transmit not just enables the actual watermark.

By: Moncler

Moncler — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:07:55 +0000

…

Very inspiring publish, Thanks !?!…

By: bt

bt — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:24:13 +0000

Regardless of the truth of the facts, flawed logic doesn’t help the discussion – if, in fact, the reason for a high level DADT discharges among women is related to “macho” males getting snuffed rather than a higher percentage of homosexual females,then unless there is also a higher number of homosexual females, we must aceept that the disproportion was caused by DADT discharges for heterosexual femals accused of homosexuality.

By: Nataraj

Nataraj — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:46:39 +0000

Most of the arguments in the preceding comments were also used about Blacks in the military, and to prevent mixed-race marriages. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. And, DADT will change. Social change is always slow and that’s generally OK.

For the Bible quoters: Yes, Leviticus states homosexuality is an abomination. It uses the same word with shellfish. Also touching the skin of a pig is expressly forbidden. If one verse of the Bible is SO important, why are not the others in the same book equally important? Since football, pork chops and bratwurst seem to be part of our national heritage, and there’s a Red Lobster in every decent sized city in the US, then there is only one real answer: Some of you find homosexual sex to be icky and you can’t get over it. (Unless it’s two girls and then it’s super hot and you want to see it in all your porn.)

By: Carlos

Carlos — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:31:08 +0000

The law is clear: Homosexuality is imcompatible with military service. The author is wrong in asserting there’s some sort of “secret law” that would allow this president to overrule the will of the people as expressed by their representatives in Congress.

If homosexuals can’t even make the minor “sacrifice” of soft-pedaling their sexual preferences, how can we seriously expect them to make major sacrifices for their fellow warfighters?

By: analyst

analyst — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:11:02 +0000

There is no justification for homosexuality.
If it is a product of mere evolution, then let the fights begin or remain in their search for survival. It is not our responsibility to wait millions of years for homosexuals to evolve the ability to procreate.

If it isn’t evolution and it is being claimed a moral mandate asserting itself for justification, the only true source of morality is Biblical. Since the Bible never demands hatred of the person only their deeds and acts, we know that people who demand to be identified by their sexual conduct and genitalia are desperately missing these moral standards. They confuse deep convictions of others as the source of the ailing consciences and blame them. That confusion and incoherency is not our fault, it is not sourced from us, yet they rail and blame us for this. It is sourced from a God given thing, our consciences. They are a delicate instrument, not to be desecrated by immoral vandalism.

No moral compulsion can force another to accept what is repugnant. If homosexuality cannot sell itself, then it has failed. As soon as it legislates and imposes an acceptance, it hurls even deeper into a fantasy.

We are not to create a morbid and perverse identity based upon an appendage and its use. This is Biblically degrading and God has no desire to base a relationship with anyone upon those that descend into this perversion. He begs us to stop such behavior because it defiles what He has created us to be.

The freedom and liberty to exist in America is not based upon religious morality but upon civil and state interpretation of the sanctity and equality of life…not to automatically cover obscene choices assaulting the nerve, essence, and well being of the innocent and even the ignorant. They have a right to remain in a state of any purity they wish to define. To barge in and force those with moral convictions to imbibe perversion is an obscenity, an extreme hostility and vandalism.

America is here to protect you, but not any and all your chosen acts and/or repugnancies. Now if homosexuals really loved their fellow man, you would not be demanding he accept what his ancient convictions say are foul and abominable. You don’t game democracy to morph their beliefs into the trivial, backward and other mockeries, to accept what to most is unacceptable over night or by wearing down the innocent by coercion or tactics of flooding their environ with what they believe to be filth.

If straight folk do not wish to revise their ancient shame of a genitalia driven lifestyle & identity, they have that right to keep the shame that Biblical morality has created. It is a preservative for “righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people”.

Homosexuals have no rights to inundate the morays and customs of others like tantruming children. For them, it is purity of conscience and a sense of abiding wholesomeness not ever being coerced to give up and yield to the demanding of lower standards or even the annihilation of them.

I say they create their own military branch or community service corps, not try to foil and sabotage a yet resistant established American military.

By: davidkfuller

davidkfuller — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:55:29 +0000

Aloysius if you are talking about the Post-ABC poll…..well then you basically believe anything anyone tells you.

Go ahead and poll a 1000 Marines. Your happy reaction will return back to sad. I will say you would get about 1 percent but that 1 percent is gay.

You seem to think I have a hate on for gays, I don’t. I just don’t think they should be in the Military, and I don’t appreciate B.S polling and B.S spewing of those polls.

By: Lamar

Lamar — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:27:23 +0000

Keep em the hell out!! The only thing wrond with Dont Ask Dont Tell is that the dumb ass pervs shouldne’t be allowed in their to begin with. Listen up; if you is gay – dont join the army dumbass!!

By: Aloysius

Aloysius — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:09:40 +0000

@davidkfuller:
Where on earth do you come from? This is the 21st century. You obviously haven’t looked at the national polls lately. 75 percent is slightly high, but it’s very close to that. It’s slightly less in the military itself, but it’s still a solid majority.

And don’t flatter yourself. If you think every gay guy would want to look at your ass, you’re sadly deluded.