hk wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:38 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:22:49 -0500, John H
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:52:10 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
On Jan 17, 1:34 pm, John H wrote:
...we need a United States Sailors' Dance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wouNQ...eature=related
(One of my favorites.)
Well, if Pelosi and Obama get their way, this will be the new U.S.
Army fight song..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08
This really sucks...
Well, maybe they just want the Army back in San Francisco.
Plus, I've got a feeling that allowing some open gays into the Army,
Marines, etc, is going to result in a lot of openly gay guys getting
the
**** stomped out of them. Not judging right or wrong, but I'll bet it
happens.
All depends. If the gays interpret this as a free ticket to actively
live
and promote their lifestyle, yep, they are going to pay the
consequences.
If they continue to keep their persuasion private and among
themselves, no
problem.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If they would be satisfied to serve and keep their persuasion private,
there would be no problem. They already have the protections in place
to do that. This is something the activists want so they can actively
live and promote their lifestyle... Even if all don't, it only takes
a few zealous activists to disrupt any organization. I know the haters
will say I am prejudice, sure, I have issues with homosexuals, but as
a conservative (well liberatarian) Christian I have decided to not be
their judge. I have a couple of great gay couples right here in my
neighborhood, both couples raising children. I have no problem with
that, I do however appreciate that neither couple is trying outwardly
to sway their children in any particular direction.


You say you are a christian, but your hehavior says no.

It has nothing to do with being a Christian or about behavior. It has to
do with maintaining order and discipline. A cohesive fighting unit can't
have two sub groups.