Should Homosexuals Serve Openly in the Military?
November 29th, 2007 at 06:17am Mark Noonan
It will be a subject of debate, thanks to the very likely planted question in the CNN debate - from Politico:
A retired Army general, Keith Kerr, just listed all his military credentials and then left the crowd silent by saying at the end of his video that he is “an openly gay man” and wants to know why gays can’t serve in the military.
Romney was hit by Anderson Cooper with a past statement (imagine that) saying that he “look[ed] forward” to the day gays could serve. Pressed hard by Cooper about whether he had changed his mind, Romney plainly looked displeased. “This isn’t that time,” Romney first said, noting the national security threats. He said the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “seems to have worked” and, toward the end, even drew some boos (it was tough to discern exactly why).
Kerr, present in the audience, was then introduced by Cooper and said he didn’t feel as though he got an answer. Explaining why, he got his own boos (partially snuffed by some shushing).
It all made for some feet-shuffling and floor-staring among the gathered Republicans.
Oh, my tireless colleague Avi Zenilman back at Politico World HQ does an insta-search on Kerr and discovers he was on the Steering Committee of “Veterans for Kerry.”
Short answer (at least as far as I’m concerned): yes.
Long answer: Being gay is not wrong - it is not a sin to be gay; given this, there should be no objection to having gay Americans serve in the United States military. And yet, there is objection.
Gay rights activists would have the objections as the mere result of anti-gay bigotry - and I’m sure that there is an element of this in the debate. However, there are practical considerations involved here.
First and foremost, a generally held opinion - whether well or ill-founded - cannot be lightly set aside, especially in a democratic republic. Say what you will about it, there is a distaste for homosexual acts among the general population, even among some of those who are determined to be very tolerant in the matter. I believe this distaste is irreducible: most people who are not gay will never come around to an idea that homosexual acts are morally the same as heterosexual acts. There will always be an element of the “other” in homosexuality as far as the heterosexual population is concerned. This gap can be bridged in many ways, but it will always be there, and has to be taken into consideration.
Secondly, and in conjunction with the distaste noted above, there is the practical matter of how to regulate the relations between servicemembers. Part of the objection to having women serve in the military (an objection I share - and do keep in mind that my sister served for 8 years in the Navy, and I still feel this way) is that in the various bonds which can develope between men and women may work at cross purposes to tbe bonds necessary for unit cohesiveness. This is why even to this day women are not placed in front line combat units. Adding open homosexuality to the mix will add yet another potentional morale destroyer to the mix. This doesn’t mean that there can never be homosexuals serving openly in the military, but it does mean it is not something we can just willy-nilly whistle up without careful thought.
What General Kerr did - almost certainly at the behest of Democrats trying to score cheap points - was absurd; and as a former serving officer he knows it is. Its not just a matter of “I want it, so we will do it”. Upon the effectiveness of the United States military rides the safety of the United States of America and, indeed, the safety of the whole world. This magnificent instrument must not become a laboratory where social engineering experiments are conducted. As I said, I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military - but before we allow that, we’ll have to make some things very clear; among these things would be just under what circumstances servicemembers would be able to have non-professional relations with each other. This is not the sort of thing which lends itself to cut and dried prescriptions, and the matter would take a great deal of study and preparation.
Kerr did a bit of Democratic grandstanding, and that was a disservice to his own cause - now it is time for thoughtful people to engage in real debate over this issue.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, Social Issues
326 Comments
1. SEW | November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 am
As President I would review any bill forwarded by Congress concerning this legislative issue.
2. Christian Wright | November 29th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I am a retired police officer. When I was on the force we had several gay officers, but they did not serve their community as openly gay men and women. I bumped into them at a rally to protect the civil rights of gays. At first they thought I was gay too, but when I assured them I was just their to support gays and lesbians they were impressed.
When the police department issued a new anti-harassment general order, it did not include homosexuals as a protected group. I was approached by the gay officers to bring it to the cheif’s attention. I did, and the cheif responded that we had to gay officers so it did not matter. When I told them we had several, he wanted to know who they were. I refused to tell him and my career took a nose dive. I knew he wanted to know because he was a homophobic who wanted to find excused to get rid of them.
He eventually awarded one of the gay officers the highest award for bravery a year later. Had he known that man was gay, the cheif would have been running him off the force instead of rewarding him.
I am sure the same thing is happining in the military, especially now that the military is becoming the tool of Evangelicals.
3. Eric T | November 29th, 2007 at 7:50 am
I think this challenges the integrity of the military. As a courtesy to the hetro soldiers who have to take showers with 60 other guys and be sleeping in bunk beds. They need to feel safe and secure that their drill sergant isn’t going to be demanding sexual favors and that the military isn’t going to turn into some big homo orgy.
4. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Why do we continue to push minority rights when they conflict with majority rights?
Why do gays insist on all of us knowing what they prefer to do in the bedroom?
Civilization would be much more cordial and pleasant if we all had thicker skin and respect for others.
5. Mark M | November 29th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I served in the navy aboard the USS Saratoga CV-60 in the late 70’s and early 80’s. I knew a young sailor, whom was gay, who served with me. He was a nice kid named Peter with some feminine traits and would tell you, if you ask, that he was gay.
Most of the men I served with were fresh out of the high school locker room. As I’m sure you all remember, at that age, to fit in was everything. Weakness was not a quality that inspired much compassion but, rather, it inspired disdain, ridicule and often abuse. You didn’t have to be gay, wearing glasses, being overweight, freckled… were enough to make you a target. Kids can be cruel.
Peter suffered for his sexuality. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to be treated the way Peter was. In the military, discipline is an essential element in building a unit capable of achieving the goals and objectives command requires of it. Failure is not an option. Men often die conducting successful operations it’s catastrophic when they fail. Peter was not good for discipline.
I remember him walking down the passageway being kicked in the rear by a line of sailors waiting to eat. I felt sorry for him, but, to my shame I didn’t say or do a thing about it. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to subject themselves to such abuse. To maintain discipline all of those men should have been brought up on charges. Some ten plus men should have gone to the brig for their actions that day. If that had happened unit cohesion would have suffered.
Brigadier General Karr was successful in the military; however, Karr lied about whom he was for 40 + years to just about everyone he served with. Had he been honest and openly gay, even if it were allowed, does anyone believe he would have been a Brigadier General in the Army? It not just what we allow but, what we really accept down deep in our gut. That can’t be legislated.
6. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Homosexuals and Lesbians are free to join the military today — just keep their sexual actives to themselves and don’t make it a public display!
We don’t need a bunch of Democrats (Liberals) meddling with our military. Democrats already want to reduce and weaken our military capability, and the Democrats’ nutty Left-Wing extremists would like nothing more than to disrupt or destroy what we have!
Democrats (Liberals) are never satisfied with just some concessions on any issue. They must have it 100% their way, and they will keep chipping and chopping away until they have imposed their own agenda and beliefs on the rest of America… slowly consuming and destroying America as they work to impose Liberalism and Socialism!!!
Democrats (Liberals) want America — especially our military– reduced to the level of the rest of the world… a third rate nation with a third rate military… equal among nations… governed by the anti-American U.N.!!!
AAR
7. Eric T | November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I think the current policy is fine. Gays CAN join the military If that is what they want to choose for a career. All they need to do is keep their sex life private. Allowing open gayness would be like having co-ed showers and sleeping arrangements, where men and women bathe and sleep together. To change the rules we may discourge recruits.
8. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
AAR — Homosexuals and Lesbians are free to join the military today — just keep their sexual actives to themselves and don’t make it a public display!
Do you think they are out there have gay oral sex in the middle of a battlefield?? How does someone openly admitting they are gay stop them from doing their job? Do they not have to go thru basic training and pass all the tests than non-gay soldiers have to do?
This is like saying that Blacks or Latinos shouldn’t serve with the whites.
EricT — They need to feel safe and secure that their drill sergant isn’t going to be demanding sexual favors and that the military isn’t going to turn into some big homo orgy.
Wow. A bit anti-gay Eric? So should women not be allowed to serve? Shouldn’t they feel safe that “their drill sergent isn’t going to be demanding sexual favors”? Or is that ok because it is strictly STRAIGHT sex? What is a straight guy has a WOMAN drill sergent?? What if she starts demanding things from him.
You people are crazy. Why can’t you accept a gay soldier just like other minorities are accepted?
Besides… if we are going to go battle every brutal dictator in the world, you are going to need every soldier regardless of sexual orientation, color of skin or religous belief.
9. lilly06 | November 29th, 2007 at 11:16 am
The law should offer protection from discrimination irrespective of your race, religion and sexual orientation. Its should not be an issue in your workplace.
You cannot be a ‘gay christian’. It is clearly written in the bible that the act of homosexuality is an abormation. The church should not ordain gay priests or bless gay marriages. That in itself is a mockery onto Christ.
However from a legislative prospective and life outside or christianity prospective, no one should be ostracised from the military because they are gay or treated differently either.
10. Dasein Libsbane | November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
lilly06,
All sin is an abomination, and all of us have sin, sin or will sin. Does that mean no one can be a Christian?
Don’t think I want any part of your brand of Christianity.
11. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Republicans, like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, hate gays.
12. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Joe,
No it isn’t like Blacks, and Latinos, and American Indians, and Orientals, and Eskimos, and Whites, and races shouldn’t serve together!
If homosexuality is your thing, then enjoy it in the privacy of your own bedroom or foxhole. Don’t insist in obtaining everyone else’s approval so you can feel more secure and normal in your own actions and beliefs!
If child pornography is your thing, then move to a nation where that is considered “normal”, and don’t try to impose your beliefs and agenda on the rest of America.
If beastiality (bestiality, zoophilia) is your thing, then…
With Liberals, it never stops with one, or two, or there concessions… It stops only when Liberals have successfully imposed their views, lifestyle, and agenda on everyone else… and replaced traditional values, beliefs, and lifestyles with those which Liberals have determined are “best” and “fair” under their religion — Liberalism!!!
Never give Liberals that first inch… Never allow Liberals to get their foot in your door… UNLESS you want them to take your entire house and home from you!!!
And never forget that Liberals equal Progressives equal DEMOCRATS — different names for the same thing!!!!!
AAR
13. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
AAR,
Nobody is asking your permission for a damn thing. Nobody is asking a straight person to join in on anything. Nobody is out there having gay sex in the battlefield. Nobody is out there having gay sex in the shower.
Do you have a problem with Jews, Christians, Mormons and Athiests serving together?
And never forget that Republicans equal Conservatives equal Right-wing wackos equal gay hating white christian male — different names same thing.
You are a whole other level or wacko.
14. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Mindless Liberal…
Republicans aren’t the Taliban, and aren’t Al Qaeda, and do not hate gays; although, many do not support their chosen homosexual and lesbian lifestyles!!! Republicans also do not support child pornography, polygamy, or bestiality!
DEMOCRATS DO HATE CHRISTIANS, however, because Christians want to display crosses and The Ten Commandments (the bases for our laws), pray, and mention God in public view for all to see and hear!
We see and hear the Democrats’ (Liberals’) hatred for Christians every day in their words, actions, and deeds!!!
AAR
15. Eric T | November 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Hey Joe,
Glad to see ya back on the site, I remember talkin about Bill R with ya. I don’t see it as anti gay at all. I see it as fair. Let’s say the hetro troops are looking for some action. They have to wait till leave and go off base, to the bar or to meet up with a loved one. If allowed to be open about gayness,The homo troops can go get it on in the shower the restrooms or slip into each others beds. The military gives troops time to go on leave and do whatever they want. I think it is fair to everyone to keep it the way that it is.
16. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Joe,
Guess what!
I don’t support your nutty Liberal ideas and beliefs… nor do I need your permission to do so!!!
Go peddle your opinions to the rest of the Looney Libs over at KOS or MoveOn.Org (the ones who bought, paid for, and direct the Democrats)!
Gotta go now! I’ve got other things to do rather than listen to more Liberal whining!
AAR
17. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Joe,
Do you have a problem with Jews, Christians, Mormons and Athiests (atheists) serving together?
So now you have elevated homosexuality to a religion! Would that be a sect within the religion of Liberalism?
I’m glad to see you admit that atheism is a religion!!!
AAR
18. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Mark,
Interesting post and one that helped illuminate the question quite well. As with the rest of the work world, there has never been a question of gays and lesbians serving in military units since such units were first formed. They’ve always been there and always will be regardless of any policy, rule or regulation. The problem lies not in the presence of those service members but the actions of their fellow service members.
All professional soldiers in the United States armed forces are absolutely and appropriately limited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) from engaging in sexual harassment or entering into improper sexual relationships (such as adulterous relationships). However, no service member is prohibited from having sexual relationships so long as they don’t violate rules which are neutral to the nature of the relationship, either heterosexual or homosexual. If a male service member, such as the sailor in Mark M’s example, acknowledges truthfully when asked that he is gay but does not violate any rule relating to actual sexual behavior then the onus is on any service member who knows he is gay to behave properly and treat him as a fellow soldier, sailor or airman.
If the sailors who harassed Mark M’s shipmate had done what they did because he was of a different ethnicity, had a different skin color or practiced a different religion than the majority, there would be no controversy about the blame. It would fall on them. Not only would it fall on them but there would be no serious voices defending their actions. At the same time, the same rules would disallow his harassing them for any reason. There are a myriad of potential attacks on unit morale and unit cohesion. Expressions of sexuality are only one of them.
Women in frontline combat units is a concern because they can be identified by sight. A female service member doesn’t have to tell in order for a male service member to potentially be attracted to them. However, if a woman were to be in a frontline combat unit, it would not relieve any of the responsibility of the men of the unit to act in accordance with the UCMJ.
Currently, women are not there. Gay men are. The question then, as long as they obey the rules, is whether their fellow soldiers will also obey the rules. There may be a few genuine racists present in military units. However, they cannot act out their beliefs without fear of repercussion. That is unit discipline and requires a true commitment from the chain of command to ensure that those who have a strong negative emotional reaction, either to those of a racial minority or of those of a sexual minority, do not feel free to carry out acts in violation of the UCMJ.
The question I would have is this. There are gays and lesbians in the military now. Which is more likely to facilitate an individual service member feeling they can harass them? An environment which basically implies that being gay or lesbian is a terrible secret you mustn’t tell or an environment which acknowledges what everyone already knows to be true and equates it with all the other variety of personal traits that make up the spectrum of men and women who choose to serve their country in the armed forces?
19. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Christian Wright - had me going until you wrote “especially now that the military is becoming the tool of Evangelicals.”
WTF?
20. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Eric T, yes I remember that banter about Richardson. I can’t agree with you on this one.
You can say the same thing about straight soldiers that are man/woman. They wouldn’t have to go anywhere. They could just get it on wherever they want.
To me, the open gayness question is the same as being any minority or of a different religion.
If I want to worship some crazy releigion, would you care?
21. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
OK, so I don’t actually care if someone is “gay”.
Gay, interesting word. Didn’t used to apply to sexuality until it was stolen by homosexual advocacy groups on the advice of advertising people. But I digress.
The numbers of people we are talking about are tiny. Less than 1% of the nation is serving in the military. In fact, .8%. Less than 10% of the military is in combat, so .08% of the nation. Accepting the outrageous percentage of the population that is claimed to be gay by the homosexual advocates is 30%, then approximately .3 of .8% of the nation is affected by this discussion.
So, of all the jobs in the nation, all the jobs some tiny number of people want to work at a place governed by machismo, hormones, and bravado - and expect that institution to change to meet their needs? Well, I guess they do.
Let them serve openly. Let people who hurt them be punished accordingly.
I also think then that the tiny number of transgendered who are part of the tiny number “gay” who are part of the tiny number who serve should be allowed to work in drag (or drab, as the case may be).
22. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
AAR,
You have to leave? You must be late for your white supremacists meeting.
23. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Kahn,
We finally agree on something. It is such a small percentage yet people like AAR get their panties all twisted about it.
Great line:
Let them serve openly. Let people who hurt them be punished accordingly.
They don’t hurt you, don’t hurt them.
There are SO many more important issues than this to deal with.
24. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
25. Eric T | November 29th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Joe,
Your free to worship Satan, money, Islam, Buddah, someones rear end, even. But when applied to open gayness and guys flirting/ trying to pick up each other in the military. It is an issue of fairness. Your saying staight guys must hold out an wait for the weekend or leave. But gays can have sex whenever they can sneak it in. And that all these straight guys that got to sleep in the same room or shower together have to see it, hear it, smell it, and accept it as OK. I think the military is being more than fair. They execute gays in Iran! come on man all their asking is to take the sex off the military base. How can these guys focus on their mission, if they are falling in love, cheating on each other. Save all that for the gay bar IF you wanna be in the military, its not a have it your way military
26. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
>>The law should offer protection from discrimination irrespective of your race, religion and sexual orientation. Its should not be an issue in your workplace.<>You cannot be a ‘gay christian’. It is clearly written in the bible that the act of homosexuality is an abormation. <<
This is patently false. It is written in the OLD TESTAMENT that it is an abomination, but Jesus himself never addressed it. He DID say “Judge not lest ye be judged” and he DID call divorce an “abomination”, as well as condemn gambling and the death penalty.
If one cannot be gay and be Christian, it then follows that one cannot be a divorced Christian, a Pro-Death Penalty Christian, or a Christian who plays the lottery. This would mean that most GOP candidates for president are not Christian.
I believe an individuals’ religion is between him and his God.
27. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Eric, it is really hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or serious. I’m not even sure where to start.
If you are serious…
Do you really believe that a gay guy is flirting and trying to pick up every other guy in the military? Are you kidding me?
“But gays can have sex whenever they can sneak it in.”
Huh? Ohhhh that’s right… gays want to do nothing else but have sex! Of course.
Again I ask… what if a guy soldier and a woman soldier fall in love? They can also “have sex whenever they can sneak it in”. Is that ok because it is hetro sex?
I’m serious when I say I can’t tell if you are just kidding or not.
28. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Joe,
Whether Eric T is being serious or satirical, it illustrates the source of much of the argument. Gay men are typically caricatured as living primarily for having sex as opposed to all the other things that make up life. The fact that gay men are just like non-gay men in that most do not see sexuality as the center of their lives is ignored. The “sneaking sex in” scenario is meaningless because if it were truly covert no one would know about it. If it weren’t covert, then it is an act subject to disciplinary action just as it would be if a female soldier had sneaked into the barracks to have sex with a male soldier.
29. David/California | November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
There is a basic principle this debate is ignoring - you do not give individuals unsupervised authority over subordinates they view as desirable sexual partners. Without risking adverse cosequences, you don’t put bull dykes in charge of Campfire Girls, you don’t put queers in charge of Cub Scouts, and you don’t give homosexuals military authority, which by its nature cannot be meaningfully supervised, over enlisted men.
Want proof? Get the statistics from the JAG Corps in Washington DC. For 50 years they’ve had a constant caseload of 100’s of court martial proceedings against homosexual officers and noncoms for abusing subordinates under color of authority. And keep in mind these are the tip of the iceberg - situations were the subordinate commited suicide, or numerous individuals were harmed. Cases involving prison terms. Most of these cases are handled with discharges and resignations and JAG in Washington never sees them.
Why is this hard?
30. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
>>There is a basic principle this debate is ignoring - you do not give individuals unsupervised authority over subordinates they view as desirable sexual partners. <<
So, the military doesn’t put male commanders in charge of female soldiers?
31. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
you don’t put bull dykes in charge of Campfire Girls, you don’t put queers in charge of Cub Scouts, and you don’t give homosexuals military authority
WOW. Someone being gay does not mean they are going to go and try having sex with everyone and everything that moves. Good grief people!!!!
David, I’ll ask you since AAR didn’t want to answer.
Do you think people of different religious beliefs should serve together? What if a Jew tried to convert a Christian?
32. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
David/California,
I don’t have any particular doubt that some number of such cases exist. However, if you’re going to use them in your argument, the onus is on you to retrieve them, not the other readers. It would also only be relevant if those statistics were laid side-by-side with the cases involving other instances of abusing subordinates where the subordinate was of the opposite sex. As stated, it only proves that the military is capable of enforcing discipline when it chooses to do so.
This also serves to illustrate my point that for many people who have negative emotional reactions to gays and lesbians (”bull dykes”, “queers”) they also have the notion that gays and lesbians are inherently sexualized beings who are unable to control their “appetites”. This is a stereotype which is no more true than that of an African-American being powerless in the face of a piece of watermelon or a bucket of fried chicken.
33. Eric T | November 29th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
So to the people debating FOR a gayer military are you really homosexuals that are considering join the forces, but just don’t feel it is gay enough for you. Or are you just people that like to debate based on logic???
34. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Eric,
In the words of Larry Craig… I am not gay. I have not been gay. I love my wife.
Seriously… no, I’m not gay. I am very happily married with a child. I do have a couple of friends that are gay. They are not in the military.
Why am I arguing FOR this? I just don’t agree that someone’s sexual orientation should matter to anyone else. The same goes for the color of someone’s skin or their religious beliefs. I don’t have to agree with them, but they can do whatever they want to do since it doesn’t affect me.
And we are not arguing for a “gayer military”. Do you seriously believe that a gay man says… “Hmmm… the army sure would be a great place to meet guys.” Do you really think that in the middle of a basic training, they are thinking how much they would love to have sex with that guy???
Perhaps… just maybe they love their country and want to serve it. Nah… gays would never think that, right??
35. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
>>So to the people debating FOR a gayer military are you really homosexuals that are considering join the forces, but just don’t feel it is gay enough for you. Or are you just people that like to debate based on logic???<<
I am not gay, but think that gay people, people of all religions, all races, etc are created equally. The question was posed to the candidates last night and all of them seemed to be on the side of bigotry and against equality.
I’m not arguing for a ‘gayer’ military anymore than people who fought against segregation were arguing for a ‘blacker’ military.
Are YOU arguing against equality and FOR bigotry?
36. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I’m just arguing for what’s right.
I think that any capable person who loves his/her country should be able to serve regardless of religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.
37. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Eric T,
The issue is not a “gayer military”. There are now and always have been gays in the military. The issue is how all service members conduct themselves. This has also always been true. Your assertion above is only true to the extent that such activities go undetected just as a service member can avoid being court-martialed for adultery if they are sufficiently stealthy about engaging in adultery. However, gays openly serving would change nothing regarding conduct that would violate rules governing sexual expression.
38. Eric T | November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
so what would it take to get you to join up and serve the country
39. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
It would take me being about 10-15 years younger.
Why aren’t you joining? Too many gays?
40. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
By the way Eric, I do enjoy debating you and we had a good debate going on last time. I’m not trying to pick on you or anything with this debate, but I am just 180-degrees opposite of your thinking here.
41. Brian Gregory | November 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Noonan (as usual). These people, in particular the gentleman at last night’s debate are, in general, good people! The retired Brigadier General proved that with his 42 YEARS OF SERVICE to the country we all love.
The United States military prides itself not on discrimination, but on being, simply put, the greatest, best trained coalition of armed services in the world. If homosexuals can contribute to this effort, then for God’s sake, put your hatred aside and let them!
I commend the man who spoke so passionately at the debate, and I am still angry at the reaction of Duncan Hunter and some audience members. We need to show that we too are compassionate, while still keeping our core values at heart.
The vast majority of bloggers on thise site are (like myself) straight and against same-sex marriage. This does not justify the degradation of honorable men like that retired General. We can be heterosexual, conservative, and reasonable at the same time!
42. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
It’s all really simple–when Sodomites are allowed to serve in our honorable armed forces, the image and character of the military is destroyed.
Decency should be the rule in any office of our country.
Remember, God had to destroy a Nation once because of their indecent acts. He cleansed the land so well that the ground won’t grow anything to this day. So, He gave Sodom and Gomorrah as an example, He says “look, you can see where sin will get you”.
Let’s heed the Lord’s command.
Jeremiah
43. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Jeremiah,
Assuming that you’re not using satire, gays and lesbians are already serving. It’s specifically allowed. The current restriction is that they can’t be asked about it or tell about it.
44. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Jeremiah,
Who is YOUR candidate? The divorced candidates are obviously immoral, as are the pro-choice and pro-death penalty candidates. Who does that leave?
45. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Assuming that you’re not using satire, gays and lesbians are already serving.
Diane,
That’s exactly it, where is the point to continue to allow a lifestyle that harms the image of our military, why not stop it?
People will say, “Well, that’s their choice” it should be accepted.
It’s NOT acceptable!!! Why? Because it’s not according to God’s Word.
Regardless of what others may think, Homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to serve in our military. Period.
Jeremiah
46. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
>>It’s all really simple–when Sodomites are allowed to serve in our honorable armed forces, the image and character of the military is destroyed.<<
Do you think Jesus would have condoned torture? Don’t you think Abu Graib and other crimes (like the violent rape and killing of a young girl and her family) damaged the image of the American military MORE than gay people who serve our country honorably?
Actually, isn’t that something we PRIDE ourselves on? That we don’t execute homosexuals and that we live peacefully with others with whom we don’t agree?
If you WANT a theocracy, how does that make you different than the Taliban?
47. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Coulterfan,
Mike Huckabee is the man for the job!
If the people are smart, he is who they will put in office.
Jeremiah
48. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Jeremiah,
Happily, you live in a nation where you are free to express your religious opinion. Fortunately, the armed forces of the United States, tasked with defending your freedoms, are not an arm of any particular church.
49. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
If you WANT a theocracy, how does that make you different than the Taliban?
Coulterfan,
I don’t want a theocracy, it’s up to the people ultimately, as to where they want this Nation tp go. They can turn this Nation around and head it in the right direction, by first getting God back in his rightful place, In their HEARTS and then the school system will follow, which is a horrible mess right now, because of the Liberal professors and teachers with their warped Ideologies in brainwashing our children. God help us.
The Nation is definitely in a mess with all the Liberalism, but nothing is too difficult with God. When the people turn back to God, Liberalism WILL be defeated.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah
50. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Fortunately, the armed forces of the United States, tasked with defending your freedoms, are not an arm of any particular church.
Diane,
Well, they may be true, but it still doesn’t change the fact that God’s Law will stand.
Jeremiah
51. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
This was actually a fun debate until now. Now it is just flat-out freaky.
Jerimiah, you DO understand that you are saying everyone who doesn’t believe in the same religion of you is wrong and should not be given any rights don’t you? You DO understand that it isn’t up to PUBLIC schools to teach religion, don’t you? You DO understand that in America people are free to choice the religion they want, right?
How did God feel about blacks marrying whites? Or a Christian marrying a Muslim? How do YOU feel about that?
It sure sounds like you are saying that gay people have absolutely no place in the military. It doesn’t matter if they have served honorably or not. They have no place in your world.
52. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Jeremiah,
And if Huckabee (who is quite liberal on immigration and social program spending) doesn’t get the nod?
What will you do if Guiliani, Romney, or Thompson get the nomination?
BTW, Huckabee DOES support the death penalty, despite him KNOWING the answer to WWJD. It’s EASY to ask the question when you don’t have to change your position, but he was uncomfortable answering Jesus’ position on the death penalty.
53. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Do you think Jesus would have condoned torture?
Coulterfan,
No, I don’t think He would. Jesus never condoned bodily harm to anyone. That’s why Saddam Hussein is out of power now. Thank the Lord.
But….
He instituted the government as a means of control over the criminals.
He also instituted the Death penalty.
Submit to the authorities, or will be subject to punishment.
Jeremiah
54. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Jerimiah,
Should gays be tortured?
55. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Should gays be tortured?
No, Joe!
They have a right to be citizens, But they shouldn’t be given an honorary position.
Pray for them.
Jeremiah
56. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
>>He also instituted the Death penalty.<<
He DID? When He said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” what do you think He meant?
Did He then ‘institute the Death Penalty’ and stone her Himself (since He was without sin)?
What did He say when he explicitly address the Old Testament statement “An Eye for an Eye”? I believe He said “Turn the other cheek”, am I not correct?
What ARE you talking about? He was a VICTIM of the death penalty!
57. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Jeremiah,
It’s not “may”. The armed forces defend the Constitution. The Constitution contains the First Amendment prohibiting the government establishment of any particular religion over another because of the wars between Catholics and Protestants that had long raged in Europe. It also states in Article VI, section 3, that “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” No church of any kind can claim any special status or authority in the operation of the government of the United States. That’s why, despite the fact that there are Christians today that think that Roman Catholics are heretics and the Pope is possibly the Antichrist aren’t able to prevent Roman Catholics from serving their country.
58. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
coulterfan,
Apparently God believes in the death penalty!
Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah!
If you do not know how or where to find it in the Bible, Jeremiah can provide the quote it for you!
If reading a Christian Bible bothers you, check with a member of the Jewish or Muslim faith!
AAR
59. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Joe,
I leave for awhile and come back to you find you talking about torturing homosexuals!
Who said anything about torturing homosexuals? Oh, I see, that was you!!!
Is that all you Democrats think about? Torture, torture, torture!
AAR
60. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
>>Apparently God believes in the death penalty!
Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah!<<
Oh, you’re JEWISH! I had no idea, I thought we were talking about the NEW Testament and the words of JESUS!
Remember, then, not to eat ‘cloven’ animals like pigs because they are unclean. Also, you may notice that women who commit adultery are STONED TO DEATH in the public square in the OLD Testament.
Jesus, however, overturned many of these Old Testament laws and spoke out vehemently against the Death Penalty!
61. FmrMarine | November 29th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I know first hand about barrack sleeping in rows,of bunk beds
10 to 25 men in a single non partitioned room with 25 shower heads,
and 15 toilets in a row with NO partitions. and urinals in a row.
Believe me the LAST thing needed in that environment is some homosexual checking things out. Dont tell me they wont that is a LIE.
Any more than any male could say with a straight face showering with 20-25, 18 to 25 yo girls would not phase him in the least.
This isnt about the marxist answer for everything…..the TIRED old verse homophobia, hate, YA DE YA etal. It is about our Christian MORALS, VALUES and……….COMMON SENSE.
62. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Jesus, however, overturned many of these Old Testament laws and spoke out vehemently against the Death Penalty!
Coulterfan,
63. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Amen!
Jeremiah
64. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
If homosexuals are barred from the military then perhaps the same rule should apply to Congress.
That would eliminate about half of the seated Republicans, right?
65. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Jeremiah:
Should we also stone to death children that talk back to their parents as instructed in Exodus 21?
I’ll make sure I have enough suitable sized stones in my yard when I have children.
66. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
FmrMarine,
You served with gay Marines just like my youngest nephew in Iraq does now. There have been members of the Corps who were gay from the first day. The fact that you didn’t know they were there doesn’t mean that they weren’t. In fact, some of them may have been “checking you out”. If they did, were you harmed by that? Did your unit fail in its mission because of that?
The United States Marine Corps is not a Christian organization and Christians don’t have any more or less standing in the Corps than any of the many different faiths whose members have honorably served. They defend the freedoms of all Americans, not just Christian Americans. “Common sense” says that the Corps and America are best served by members who will faithfully execute their duties under the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and their chain of command. I’m not sure what your phrase means exactly, but I don’t think “checking things out” falls under any of those things.
67. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Jeremiah:
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. — Psalm 137:9
Wow, I should take glee in I see…….
68. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Jeremiah,
So you’re telling me that people should be stoned to death for adultery?
“And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man’s wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10
And for working on the Sabbath?
“Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you; every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall he cut off from among his people.”- Exodus, 31/14
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”- Exodus, 35/2
And for disobeying parents:
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them”- Deuteronomy, 21/18
“Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;”- Deuteronomy, 21/19
” And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.”- Deuteronomy, 21/20
“And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”- Deuteronomy, 21/21
And for cursing parents:
“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”- Exodus, 21/17
And for homosexuality:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”- Leviticus, 20/13
And for having sex with a woman during her menstruation:
“And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he bath discovered her fountain, and she bath uncovered the fountain of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”- Leviticus, 20/18
And for loss of virginity:
“But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel”- Deuteronomy, 22120
“Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she bath wrought folly in Isreal, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”- Deuteronomy, 22/21
Another on adultery:
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”- Leviticus, 20/10
According to you, Jesus Christ in Matthew 5/17 endorses the afore-mentioned first seven laws of death penalty prescribed by Moses in the following words :
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”- Matthew, 5/17
So, you’re suggesting that Guilliani, McCain, Thompson, etc should all be PUT TO DEATH?!?!?
If not, who gives YOU the power to pick and choose which of these Biblical laws to enforce? Is it YOU who is without sin, so you can cast the ‘first stone’???
Remember, Jesus STOPPED the stoning of the prostitute and was, therefore, acting against Biblical law himself.
69. FmrMarine | November 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Umm it seems we as a nation have been ruled under the Christian, Jewedo common law…Ie the Bible.
Our whole court system, military, and government are SWORN in on the………..BIBLE.
Our money states in GOD we trust, the ten COMMANDMENTS are posted on the supreme courts walls.
Read o the declaration of independence, the gettysburg address etc to much to show here, THEN tell me why sexual deviants should openly parade, and force their psychosis upon the rest of us.
As far as homos serving when I did …maybe but they stayed DEEP DEEP in the closet.
70. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
coulterfan,
What do you have against Jews?
I bet you’d say the same thing about Muslims!
When and where did Jesus revoke and toss out the Old Testament? Do you have a list of those portions which Jesus revoked?
Where did Jesus say the death penalty was not to be used for any crimes?
AAR
71. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
FmrMarine
How can you say we live under Judeo-Christian laws when the First Amendment contradicts at the first four Ten Commandments?
Further, I hardly think capitalism is a “Christian” institution.
72. LiberalMind | November 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
AAR
I think you need to revisit the whole turn the other cheek thing……
73. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Diana,
Should heterosexual men be permitted to bring their lovers and wives to the front lines and into the fox holes with them?
AAR
74. FmrMarine | November 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
diana
lets say at work….
a male maintenance man had a peep hole in a stall you used, and watched you do your business.
Would you be harmed by this?
Would this prevent you from doing your job?
If you knew this was happening daily, and were told to get over it….what then?
surely this wouldn’t prevent you from working next to this person, or eating lunch ,next to him or being on the elevator alone together..WOULD IT ??????
75. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Mindless Liberal,
That was turn the other cheek… ONCE!
There was nothing said about turning one’s cheek again, and again, and again while your adversary beats you to a pulp or trashes your own values and beliefs!
That would be suicide… and contrary to the Bible’s teachings.
AAR
76. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
>>What do you have against Jews?
I bet you’d say the same thing about Muslims!
When and where did Jesus revoke and toss out the Old Testament? Do you have a list of those portions which Jesus revoked?
Where did Jesus say the death penalty was not to be used for any crimes?<<
I have nothing against any religion. I have GREAT LOVE for our Constitution, though, which clearly prohibits (in the FIRST AMENDMENT) the establishment of religion.
Besides, you’re off-point. Islam and Jewish religions rely on the Old Testament (hence the prohibition of cloven animals, the ‘cutting off hands’ of robbers in the Muslim world, the death penalty for homosexuals, etc)
My point was that Jesus DIRECTLY spoke against the death penalty (as well as removing the prohibitions on eating ‘unclean’ animals). He did so TWICE:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:38-39
And in John 8:7, the townspeople were going to stone a woman for adultery according to the old testament, but Jesus stopped them and said:
“But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”-John 8:7
Jesus was NOT about revenge and punishment, but about love, forgiveness, and compassion.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34).
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27-28).
Obviously some of you need to brush up on your faith. If, after reading the ENTIRE Gospel, you STILL think that Jesus would be Pro-Death Penalty, please quote the appropriate passages.
77. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
FmrMarine,
I’m very sorry that you are so personally troubled that you feel that something has been “forced” on you by people being allowed to go about their daily lives just like everyone else. There’s an observation that I’ve heard more than once that no one in America thinks more about gay sex than Fred Phelps, the leader of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. That body was recently hit with an $11 million dollar judgment by a jury for their actions in attacking the family of a dead Marine and picketing at his funeral not because the Marine was gay but because they think that “God hates fags” and “God hates America” because of homosexuals. Apparently, Phelps and his congregation just can’t stop thinking about gay sex.
As to your rhetorical questions and those of AAR, I would simply point out to you that those actions would not be allowed under the UCMJ or any of the chains of command of the armed forces. That’s the entire point - everyone, straight, gay or completely-disinterested-in-sex - must comply with where authority derives from if they are in the military. That would be the Constitution of the United States, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the chain of command. Fake scenarios about girlfriends or wives in foxholes or plainly criminal acts of voyeurism (your peephole example) are easily answered if you want to apply the logic.
78. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
FmrMarine,
How would you feel if your were sent out on the more dangerous missions because someone didn’t want to send his or her “lover” or “potential lover” on those missions, or because another soldier “negotiated” for a safer mission in exchange for “sexual favors”!
Lovers, or would be lovers do not belong on the battlefield to further complicate command, and the life and death decisions which the military must make!
AAR
79. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
>>There was nothing said about turning one’s cheek again, and again, and again while your adversary beats you to a pulp or trashes your own values and beliefs!
That would be suicide… and contrary to the Bible’s teachings.<>Lets say at work….
a male maintenance man had a peep hole in a stall you used, and watched you do your business.<<
Who’s suggesting that THIS should be allowed in the military? Again, inappropriate BEHAVIOR should be punished- what if a male drill sargeant did this to the women’s rest room? Are you implying THAT is okay?
80. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
>>>>There was nothing said about turning one’s cheek again, and again, and again while your adversary beats you to a pulp or trashes your own values and beliefs!
That would be suicide… and contrary to the Bible’s teachings.<
Please quote Jesus’ words to back up this assertion. . . when did He say to fight back?
WWJD? Did He fight back against His unjust and cruel treatment at the hands of the Romans?
81. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
coulterfan,
Now, you didn’t type all that. You pulled it from the Liberal’s data base of prepared responses! I’ve seen much the same thing before. Conservatives really need to learn and use those techniques!
Oh, so the views, opinions, and beliefs of Jews and Muslims don’t matter because they believe in the Old Testament! What do you have against Jews and Muslims? Apparently, a great deal!!!
Even today, people are pardoned or their death penalty commuted. Tell me where Jesus said the death penalty will no longer be used for any crimes?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:38-39
Do not resist an evil person! I guess that pretty much gives criminal free reign! Looks like we can clean out those crowded jails and prisons!
So you believe Jesus intended for a person to stand still and be stabbed, shot, and killed — as they turn their cheek back and forth, over and over? That sounds like suicide to me. Some how, I don’t think that’s what Jesus meant! You may be suicidal, but I’m not!
So you would “not resist an evil” person intent on robbing or killing you or your family? Interesting! I’d shoot someone who tried to kill me or my family!
Oh, by the way I AM PRO DEATH PENALTY!
AAR
82. FmrMarine | November 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
diana
sexual perversion, and deviation, was considered a mental disorder and is just that…period. It was a felony in almost all states for over 200 years of jurisprudence.
Only when the mental illness of marxism (liberalism) took root did homosexuality suddenly become “cool” and the in thing.
if it is openly accepted in the military it becomes just that - FORCED upon you.
Perversion under the darkness or the light of day is just that, no wants to serve with a mentally deranged person, with odd sexual perversions.
83. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
coulterfan,
You are nuts, besides being suicidal! Take a walk through a dark alley in the rough part of a major city and let’s see how long you stand there turning your cheeks back and forth! One way or another, I’d bet you don’t last long!!!
You can stand and be killed! I and most other Americans are going to fight… and do our best to kill the one trying to kill us! Most will even try and pull you to safety, even if you won’t fight your attacker, preferring instead to see how many blows your cheeks can take before you’re down for the count!
You are a prime example of why a Democrat should never, ever be in charge of defending America and our families!
AAR
84. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
FmrMarine,
You’re absolutely right. Activist Liberals judges illegally and unconstitutionally changed the meaning and intent of the Constitution and “found” rights and guarantees which were not there, nor were they intended!
A little history…
Sodomy [without which there would be no gay marriage] has, until recently, been viewed and treated as a major crime. When this nation was formed, sodomy carried harsh penalties, including extended jail terms, life in prison, and even the death penalty! (No right or protection for gay marriage!)
In 1786, Pennsylvania became the first of the 13 American states to drop the death penalty for sodomy. The new sentence was 10 years in prison and the forfeiture of all property. (No right or protection for gay marriage!)
In 1788, at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified, sodomy was a major crime in all states, with punishment ranging from extended jail sentences up to and including the death penalty! Nine of the original thirteen states still provided the death penalty for sodomy.(No right or protection for gay marriage!)
In 1791, at the time the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments, to the Constitution was ratified, sodomy was a major crime in all states, with punishment ranging from extended jail sentences up to and including the death penalty! Nine of the original thirteen states still provided the death penalty for sodomy. (No right or protection for gay marriage!)
In 1868, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws up to and including life in prison and the death penalty. Four states still specified the death penalty for sodomy and eleven states provided a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. (No right or protection for gay marriage!)
In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of “homosexual sodomy” was not a “fundamental right.” The majority opinion, written by Byron White, pointed out that “sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights.” It went on to observe that “in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy.” (No right or protection for gay marriage!)
Then, in 2003, the activist Liberal Supreme Court overturned the history of this nation, our laws and the Constitution and “created” a right and protection which is NOT there. There was never any Constitutional protection for sodomy. Those judges should have been impeached and removed from office!
If the people choose to incorporate that protection by appropriate laws or Constitutional Amendments enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution… so be it — they have that right — but the Constitution does not give that role, right, or responsibility to judges… or unilaterally to Liberals!!!
AAR
85. Casper | November 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
“sexual perversion, and deviation, was considered a mental disorder and is just that…period. It was a felony in almost all states for over 200 years of jurisprudence.”
It was considered natural by both the Greeks and Romans for over a thousand years. Both Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great had affairs with both men and women.
“Only when the mental illness of marxism (liberalism) took root did homosexuality suddenly become “cool” and the in thing.”
First marxism and liberalism are two totally different things. Second, I don’t know of anyone who became a homosexual because it was cool. Do you?
“if it is openly accepted in the military it becomes just that - FORCED upon you.”
Are you suggesting that everyone will be forced to become homosexuals?
86. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
The account of Samson is a prime example of how allowing yourself to be deceived into sinning can lead to your demise and it can also apply to a Nation as well.
Judges 16:1-22
And…he goes on to ask God for revenge on the Philistines for his eyes, and asks for strength just once more to defeat them.
The moral of the story is?
Don’t give into Satan’s schemes, or the Lord will leave you.
In the same we God left Samson, He will also leave this Nation if we continue down the Sodomite road.
We would be powerless to do anything about an invasion by say China or any country for that matter.
The Lord is our strength!!!
Jeremiah
87. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
FmrMarine (although it is my understanding that no one who was ever in the Corps would refer to themselves as “former”),
The fact that something was illegal in the past is irrelevant to the present. It was illegal for women to vote at one time. Now it’s not. I’m sorry that the fact that gays and lesbians are human beings who are being allowed to exercise the same freedoms that you have enrages you so, but perhaps that is an issue you might want to address with yourself.
Just out of curiosity, what is your view of the Supreme Courts decision in Loving v. Virginia? Do you think that the court was correct in Pace v. State of Alabama?
88. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Casper,
Are you suggesting that everyone will be forced to become homosexuals?
The Liberal homosexual agenda and lifestyle is being forced on America!
Gay marriage is being forced on America by the courts.
Homosexual indoctrination is being forced upon our children in the public schools — even in the earliest grades — while Democrats block efforts to provide parents with School Vouchers so they can send their children to quality schools which support and teach their values and lifestyle.
Democrats are trying pass laws to force businesses to hire homosexuals even when if they disagree and oppose it — whether for religious beliefs or other personal beliefs.
Democrats are trying to intimidate and silence those who speak out against gay marriage, homosexuals, lesbians, and every other abnormal sexual behavior by designating them as a “protected species” under hate crime laws — affording them more rights and protections than the average American!
The liberal television, film, and movie issue are pushing gay marriage and homosexuality. Turn on your television, watch a movie, listen to a liberal talk show, listen to the news — all are pushing the Liberals’ homosexual and lesbian agenda!
Americans sit complacently and idly by while Democrats attack Christians, Christmas, traditional values and marriage, patriotism, and national pride… while Democrats push illegal immigration, socialism, their welfare state, and bans against private gun ownership… while Democrats push gay marriage, homosexuality, abortions and sex for 11 year old kids… etc., etc., etc.
AAR
89. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Coulterfan and Diana,
I’m pretty confident that I’m not going to change your mind, and I know that you aren’t going to change my mind either and I pray to God that you never change my mind.
All I can do is give you what the Word of God says–’I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases, You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.’
Jeremiah
90. Casper | November 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“Homosexual indoctrination is being forced upon our children in the public schools — even in the earliest grades”
Prove it. Show me some figures on how many children have been forced to become homosexuals.
91. Sadly, No! » From N&hellip | November 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
[…] toad-licker of Blogs for Bush Victory! And it seems he’s feeling a little…pink. Being gay is not wrong - it is not a sin to be gay; given this, there should be no objection to […]
92. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Casper said–Prove it.
GAY AGENDA FORCED ON CHRISTIAN SCHOOL CHILDREN
Jeremiah
93. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Diana,
Women were given the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution — by properly and correctly amending the Constitution as provided for in the Constitution itself — not by creating a right or protection which was not there, and which was not meant or intended prior to that Amendment!
You Liberals treat the Constitution as some document of convenience, to be interpreted and applied as you see fit. The fact that you believe something is morally or ethically correct, or the “proper and human thing” to do, does not mean it is Constitutionally correct, Constitutionally protected or guranteed, or a Constitutional right — until after the proper and correct Amendments are made and ratified to the Constitution!
AAR
94. Casper | November 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Jeremiah,
So how many of those kids became Homosexuals?
95. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Casper,
I said, among other things: “Homosexual indoctrination is being forced upon our children in the public schools — even in the earliest grades — while Democrats block efforts to provide parents with School Vouchers so they can send their children to quality schools which support and teach their values and lifestyle.”
Don’t tell me you are going to deny that… again!!!
Jeremiah gave you one. Do we need to start with California — again — and work from there… including Hitler’s quote about indoctrinating the children?!!!
Rather than cluttering this site, perhaps I should work up a website and just cite the links each time.
AAR
96. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Casper,
How many do you think? I’m sure someone will do a study before long and we will begin to have some idea.
Why do you think the number of homosexuals is continuing to rise? The schools, and others, are teaching the kids it’s proper and correct! Of course, the sexually transmitted diseases are rising too — as that great Liberal sexual education teaches 11 year-old kids “how it’s done”!
AAR
97. Eric T | November 29th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
How many people out there are serious about joining if the military changes the rules?
Would we have more incidents like Abu Graib?
So do you guys think that the military would be able to recruit more soldiers or do you think these young boys would be frightened out of joining, (Ed. Note; insulting part of this comment deleted).
Lets say the new open gayness policy caused a decrease in recruits by a large percentage, would you be ok with going back to the way it was, or would you insist on having a weaker military to accomplish your diversity requirements.
If you polled the active military and found that a majority would oppose the open gayness, Would you still insist? Does the soldiers views even matter to you? or does the need for your diversity programs overpower what the troops may feel is best for them.
98. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
>>You are nuts, besides being suicidal! Take a walk through a dark alley in the rough part of a major city and let’s see how long you stand there turning your cheeks back and forth! One way or another, I’d bet you don’t last long!!!<<
Actually, that was Jesus- not me.
99. Casper | November 29th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
AAR,
What I asked for is for you to show how many kids have become homosexuals because of this so called indoctrination. Until you provide some solid evidence that children have become homosexuals because they have been indoctrinated, I”m going to assume there isn’t any evidence.
100. Diana Powe | November 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
AAR,
The fact that you don’t agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court would seem that you don’t have much respect for the law except when the law conforms to your own individual views. However, this country is one of laws and not of men. Also, you failed to answer my questions about Loving v. Virginia and Pace v. State of Alabama. They’re certainly as important as Lawrence v. Texas with which you seem rather obsessed.
It’s quite instructive to see how emotionally wrought up people get up over this subject and find themselves compelled to speak of “queers”, “bull dykes”, “homos” and “butt pirates”. I’m sure that Fred Phelps uses those same kinds of words. It must be rather sad to be so afraid.
101. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
coulterfan,
You interpret it the way you want to!!!
You’re still nuts to think that a person should stand still and allow themselves to be killed! You believe we should yield to evil… to murders… to thieves… to child molesters… to terrorists!!!
If you believe that’s want Jesus meant and intended, that’s your right!!!
I’ll fight evil rather than calmly standing there to be robbed, beaten, or killed!
AAR
102. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Diana,
Judges do not make our laws… contrary to what you may think or want!
That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
As for the other cases, I’d have to do some reading and research on those and there is nothing to be gained by wasting my time on that here and now.
AAR
103. Eric T | November 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Well when the liberals want to take something decent and inject it with homosexuality. It is not like going to a job or taking a class at school. Then leaving. It is eating, sleeping, showering, with a bunch of men. When it the gay part becomes manditory all I can think about is Prison.
Sorry I can’t agree with you
104. Jeremiah | November 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
It must be rather sad to be so afraid.
Afraid? Nah!!
Jeremiah
105. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Diana,
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t use those words.
I think it’s the liberal Hollywood film makers you should see.
What was the name of that popular liberal show? Oh, that’s right, it was “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
And you should hear the words and terms those liberal television and film makers use on other shows… all to make a profit for their liberal Hollywood stars, industry, and big Democrat political contributors!!!
AAR
106. AAR | November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Casper,
I’m going to assume that you are a big supporter of indoctrinating our children against their parents will!
AAR
107. Casper | November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
There was a point in my life where I was homophobic. I listened to and told the jokes. I made fun of people who dressed different, acted different, or just looked different.
Then I grew up.
Part of the process was confidence in my own sexuality. I’m proud to say I have only had sex with one woman (my wife) for the last 34 years.
She isn’t worried that I am going to leave her for the first woman or man that pays attention to me, nor am I worried that she is going to leave me for someone else.
The other part of the process was figuring out that some of our friends over the years are gay. Guess what, none of them have ever tried to convert either of us. one of the couples we are friends with is gay. They are one of the most committed couples we know. They have been together for over 20 years.
“I’m going to assume that you are a big supporter of indoctrinating our children against their parents will!
AAR”
I never said that. I asked for proof that schools are turning children into homosexuals. I’m still waiting.
108. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 12:06 am
>>If you believe that’s want Jesus meant and intended, that’s your right!!!<<
Jesus said what He said, like Mohammed said what he said. . .
I didn’t say I was Christian or didn’t believe in the death penalty, the question was:
WWJD?
And I don’t think the answer is that He would torture, support the death penalty, support bigotry and hatred of another for sexual transgressions, etc. I think he said,
“Judge not lest ye be judged.”
Evidently no one around here subscribes to Christ’s teachings. . .
THey just use the Bible to provide convenient and selective ‘evidence’ for their own bigotry.
109. Kahn | November 30th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Look, this is a false discussion. Given that most gays are Democrat, and less than 10% now of the military identifies as Democrat, and that only a very small number of the homosexual Democrats who want to serve in the military at all insist on being open about it, we are talking about a minuscule number of people.
But I don’t care if these guys want to put their penises in each others mouths and anal tracts. I don’t care if these women want to jam their private parts together.
You can be a girl working for a guy or a guy working for a girl and suffer abuse from them just as easily as you can be a guy working for a gay guy. Bill Clinton for example, had a long history of using his positions of authority to get sex. His actions were as wrong as a gay version would be. Workplace harassment is an independent issue from homosexuality. Public lewdness is an independent issue from homosexuality.
110. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 12:10 am
>>I’m going to assume that you are a big supporter of indoctrinating our children against their parents will!<<
Look at the Republican party, pal. Condi Rice referred to a lesbian couple as married, Cheney’s daughter is gay and he supports gay rights, Laura Bush has had gay friends, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Haggard (and another evangelical in Colorado), Catholic Priests, Ken Mehlman, etc, etc
WHO’S INDOCTRINATING YOUR CHILDREN?
111. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
>>You can be a girl working for a guy or a guy working for a girl and suffer abuse from them just as easily as you can be a guy working for a gay guy. Bill Clinton for example, had a long history of using his positions of authority to get sex. His actions were as wrong as a gay version would be. Workplace harassment is an independent issue from homosexuality. Public lewdness is an independent issue from homosexuality.<<
Never thought I’d say this, but Kahn is right. It was wrong what Clinton did, what Foley did, what Guilliani has a habit of doing, etc. . .
But the overwhelming majority of gay people are law-abiding, respectful, good Americans. They shouldn’t have to hide their partners any more than I should have to hide my wife.
Two of my neighbors were active Bush supporters during the last election and I suspect they’re gay. I don’t care, but why should they have to hide? If Dick Cheney’s daughter wanted to serve in the military, shouldn’t she be able to?
And what about hot college lesbians - can’t THEY serve ; )
Seriously, you expect people in military positions to act honorably and respectfully, no matter their personal views, sexuality, religion, etc.
112. AAR | November 30th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Casper,
A person does not have to be “homophobic” to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, Democrats’ homosexual agenda, and “gay marriage”! If homosexuals want to do their own thing, then go do it, but stop trying convince the rest of us, and teach our kids, that it’s “normal”.
If I run across any studies or figures, I’ll make sure you get them. I’m sure they will be available, and I’m also sure they will confirm what I said. Until then, you can deny what logic says otherwise.
When schools teach kids that homosexual behavior is “normal” and socially acceptable, they will be encouraged to experiment and “give it a try”, and some of those will become homosexuals and lesbians — more than would have done so otherwise. Deny it if you must, but if you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe teachers and schools have a big influence on children.
And, it’s indoctrination — pure and simple! Even if you don’t teach it in your classes, you support the actions of those who do, and thereby, condone and support that same indoctrination!
AAR
113. AAR | November 30th, 2007 at 12:49 am
coulterfan,
…the overwhelming majority of gay people are law-abiding, respectful, good Americans.
I never said they weren’t. Most I have been around would fit that category, but that does not mean that I support gay marriage, or trying to impose the Liberals’ gay agenda on America… nor does it make me “homophobic” (another trigger word used by you Liberals to stir and convey hate)!
What happened to “all we want is to be left alone in our bedroom” and “what we do in private is no one else’s business”? Now it’s gay marriage, gay indoctrination in our schools, an overdose of gay programs on television, Democrats trying to make gays a “protected species”, and on, and on, and on! Now it’s the traditional Americans who are suppose to give up their views, values, and lifestyle in preference to gays!!!
Evidently no one around here subscribes to Christ’s teachings. . .
Evidently no one here is falling for your silly Bible-based propaganda games!
“What would Jesus do?”, “What would God say?”, “What does the Bible say?”, “Is that the Christian way?” and all the many variations you Democrats (Liberals) use, are nothing more than a Liberal propaganda technique used to mislead and misdirect Christians — using their own religious beliefs against them! It’s time Christians learn to recognize and ignore your Democrat tricks, methods, and techniques used to manipulate them!
I already know your methods, techniques, and your intent! It’s getting late; I’m tired of playing that game; and it’s time to quit for tonight. You really do need to learn some new tricks!
Someone else can pick up the game if they like, or you can continue piling up your Liberal garbage to your little bleeding liberal heart’s content!!!
AAR
114. AAR | November 30th, 2007 at 12:54 am
coulterfan,
Oh, one last thing…
WHO’S INDOCTRINATING YOUR CHILDREN?
Liberal educators, teachers, and professors in our taxpayer funded public schools, colleges, and universities!!!
AAR
115. Mark Noonan | November 30th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Coulter,
Thing is, none of those are trying to enforce the false notion of a moral equivalence between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts. We’re not worried about kids being taught tolerance, we’re worried about them being taught lies in the name of tolerance.
116. Mark Noonan | November 30th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Eric,
Those are some of the issues which need to be considered carefully before any change is made - and now that I’ve had 24 hours to think about it, I’m exceptionally outraged by the stunt by Kerr…he has disgraced himself, and the Democrats who put him up to it have done a disservice to our nation.
Quite honestly, I think this action should convince all but a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton kool-aid drinker that Hillary has no place in the White House…she can deny culpability all she wants, but its just as bad if she didn’t know about it as had she ordered it done.
117. Kahn | November 30th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Well, yah. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t advocate homosexual relations. I think there is a lot of emotional pain there.
But I also think smoking is dangerous as is drinking and gambling (though I spend about $20 on the slots every time I’m in Vegas or Reno). All can be addictive. Smoking and drinking can cause direct physical harm. Drinking and driving kills more people than guns do by very far every year.
Society as a whole, through our laws permits all three. In Nevada, even prostitution is legal. So, do I care - care enough to argue they should be illegal? No. Do I advocate my niece becoming a prostitute? No.
A gay Marine will face dangers whether legalized or not. He will face harm and his tormentors will face ruin. But being an idiot and/or being a bigot are part of freedom and liberty.
I don’t think it would be good for a homosexual to join the Marines as an open gay. It won’t be good for him and it won’t be good for the other Marines and it won’t be good for the Corps. But dammit, yes he has the right to serve if he wants to. He has the right to live in the dung filled dusty hot air and wonder if that bump in the road is about to explode. If he’s willing to do that, but— well but what? Only a tiny fraction of the populace is willing to do that.
118. What? | November 30th, 2007 at 3:26 am
AAR,
Why do you have to put exclamation marks after every sentence you write?!!!! I don’t understand!!!! Do you think it will persuade others to agree with you?!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn’t work!!!!!!!!
119. What? | November 30th, 2007 at 3:50 am
AAR writes,
“Liberal educators, teachers, and professors in our taxpayer funded public schools, colleges, and universities!!!”
You are so right AAR. We should just let parents teach their kids whatever they want.
Also, I am having trouble reconciling these two passages:
“Now it’s gay marriage, gay indoctrination in our schools, an overdose of gay programs on television, Democrats trying to make gays a “protected species”, and on, and on, and on! Now it’s the traditional Americans who are suppose to give up their views, values, and lifestyle in preference to gays!!!”
and
“nor does it make me “homophobic”
The first passage makes the second passage untrue. Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals not hatred. You are clearly feel threatened of the thought of homosexuality becoming as acceptable as heterosexuality.
You wrongly perceive that sexuality is a private matter. Look around you AAR. We are constantly bombarded with images reminding us of our sexuality. It is only recently that these images have again begun to reflect homosexuality.
“Gay indocrination in the school”
Are you saying our schools are teaching kids to be gay or are you saying that our schools are teaching children that being gay is not something to be ashamed of? If it is the former, you are paranoid. If it is the latter, you are only homophobic.
I guess I should end with lots of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does that make it more persuasive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
120. Dittohead4Life | November 30th, 2007 at 5:59 am
I am sure the same thing is happining in the military, especially now that the military is becoming the tool of Evangelicals.
You’re wrong on both counts, anti-Christian Left, and your writing is at third-grade level.
I thought police officers had to have a high school diploma. btw, how often did you inspect those gay officers guns, anti-Christian?
121. Dittohead4Life | November 30th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Why do gays insist on all of us knowing what they prefer to do in the bedroom?
Because, neocon, gay rights is a Donkaroach wedge issue. Hell, it’s more important to them than keeping our country safe from attack. So is the right to murder babies, hand out condoms to schoolchildren, and steal all my money “for the greater good…”
122. Dittohead4Life | November 30th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Apparently, Phelps and his congregation just can’t stop thinking about gay sex.
Diana, don’t even attempt to compare Phelps, a fringe kook, with true evangelicals.
What are you, a blonde cow?
123. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 7:19 am
>>So is the right to murder babies, hand out condoms to schoolchildren, and steal all my money “for the greater good…”<<
So we know you’re not voting for Guilliani or Romney, then.
124. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 7:33 am
>>Thing is, none of those are trying to enforce the false notion of a moral equivalence between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts. We’re not worried about kids being taught tolerance, we’re worried about them being taught lies in the name of tolerance.<>And now that I’ve had 24 hours to think about it, I’m exceptionally outraged by the stunt by Kerr…he has disgraced himself, and the Democrats who put him up to it have done a disservice to our nation.<<
Of course you’re outraged- you’ve been fed it by the right-wing media. What was Kerr’s big ’sin’? Was the question illegitimate? Romney, at one point, was a strong supporter for gays serving openly in the military- what happened?
If the GOP can’t stand up to Democratic questions, how do they expect to stand up against Al Queda?
I mean, it’s not like Kerr disgraced himself like so-called journalist Jeff Gannon-Guckert! That was the ringer in the White House press corps, if you recall, who was a former Marine and liberally quoted by Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, etc.
Turns out he was a gay prostitute who went by the name of ‘Bulldog’.
Now THAT is a disgrace! Not asking a question about being free to be who one is in a free society. But, if you don’t like the question- attack the person who asked it, right?
125. Jeremiah | November 30th, 2007 at 8:20 am
What,
Well, I’m not afraid of homosexuals, but I would warn others, that 95% of all molestations of young boys have been homosexuals.
I pray for them that they will turn their life around, but if they ever try to do anything to me, I will teach them a lesson, and if one ever does anything to a family member…I say that he better hope and pray they give him the death penalty cause I’ll drag him through seven hells, back again, and make him wish he was never born!!!!!!!!
Jeremiah
126. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 8:49 am
>>Well, I’m not afraid of homosexuals, but I would warn others, that 95% of all molestations of young boys have been homosexuals.
And what percentage of all molestations of young girls have been by ’straight’ perpetrators? Isn’t molesting another a heinous crime regardless of sexual orientation?
127. Eric T | November 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Is the democrat strategy to spead gayness into everyone’s life whether they like it or not? Is their goal to make this the gayest country on the planet? Some of us raised with Religious beliefs can look at 1 Corinthians 9-20 or the book of Leviticus chapter 19 and see what God’s view is on Homosexuality.
This does put Believers in a difficult spot, On one hand God says it is against His Laws. On the other hand we have a democrat government and media that want to promote homosexuality as a good healthy alternative lifestyle that everyone MUST accept.
While, I have to abide by our country and state laws.
I can choose to not accept and befriend people who break laws and steal, cheat or kill
I can also choose to not accept those who break God’s laws.
I can also choose to vote out people who want to forcefeed filth and abomination into every aspect of our lives. Some may see it as no big deal. I think it is disgusting and don’t want to be near it.
128. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 9:30 am
>>s the democrat strategy to spead gayness into everyone’s life whether they like it or not? Is their goal to make this the gayest country on the planet? Some of us raised with Religious beliefs can look at 1 Corinthians 9-20 or the book of Leviticus chapter 19 and see what God’s view is on Homosexuality
I’ve already covered this, hypocrite! Unless you are prepared to also condemn everyone who is divorced, has committed adultery, has had pre-marital sex, has had any oral sex, masturbated, etc, etc. . . You are merely being a selectively Bible-quoting hypocritical bigot!
These ARE ‘God’s LAWS’ according to the Bible. And JESUS HIMSELF condemned adultery and divorce (unlike homosexuality, which is only mentioned in the old Testament)
So, for consistency’s sake, you don’t support Guiliani, Romney (both gay rights supporters, and Guiliani has been divorced and is therefore ‘an abomination’), Thompson (divorced), Rush Limbaugh (DITTO!), etc, etc
Judge not lest ye be judged, indeed.
Remember that Jesus himself considered divorce and adultery to be WORSE than homosexuality. It certainly threatens more marriages than ANY amount of gay marriage could.
Hypocrites, Pharisees, bigots, and liars!
129. Jeremiah | November 30th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I can also choose to not accept those who break God’s laws.
Eric,
That’s what we must do!!
God’s Law before man’s law.
Jeremiah
130. Eric T | November 30th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I’m faithful to my wife, mitt and rudy I don’t really like, Corinthians is new testament
131. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Jeremiah and Eric obviously remind divorced acquaintances and family members that they are going to hell for breaking a commandment.
And they no longer associate with them.
And insist that they should be put to death, like it says in the Bible.
And they never would listen or vote for one.
For they are breaking God’s laws.
132. AAR | November 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am
W¿¿¿¿,
¿Why do I have to “put exclamation points after every sentence” I write?
¡¡¡Among other reasons, to irritate Liberals (Democrats) like you!!!
(Note: I don’t put exclamation points behind every sentence…)
AAR
133. Eric T | November 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Jeremiah,
Your right!
Alot of these people just can handle the truth.
134. Jeremiah | November 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
1 Corinthians 10:8-11