ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on October 12, 2009

the military

President Obama's courting homosexuals to expose their sexual identity in the military is gruesome. It will destroy the morale of the same men and women he says he is leading to fight two wars.

Besides, what would the Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan think, if they were told that they were fighting a bunch of.... Believe me, they (Muslims) would fight to the death. Mark it on the wall.

What was going on has been nomenclature switches that have been dressed up in different garments; and to say that homosexuality was a civil and/or human rights issue would be turning the whole world upside down. If not, how about polygamy, promiscuity and other such deviant traits that society has declared as taboo for many, many years?

The organization that invited the president to its annual dinner called itself "the Human Rights Campaign", which was a name taken out of context, because "On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and that covered every human being, including the people who were now assuming the name to conceal their aberrant sexual behavior. Any more claims for human rights would therefore be redundant on their part.

Human rights dealt with serious topics such as genocide and ethnic cleansing; not mental anguish with regard to sexuality.

Congress was right in imposing the "don't ask; don't tell" rule on the military, because lawmakers saw the dangers in having to group people together who did not trust each other, particularly on the war front. That was what the whole thing was about; the trust between persons who were fighting alongside each other, with those persons having different sexual intentions. That would be a perfect recipe for failure in the battlefield. To "level the field" was the reason; and changing that rule would devastate the moral fiber of the military.

After all what is homosexuality? What does it mean? Except that, it is only a decadent sexual attitude, which is outside the norm of natural productivity; meaning, it rules out procreation in the lives of those who indulged in it. A lifestyle characterized by iniquitous arrogant mannerism. Is that what the Obama government going to base its policies on? Also knowing perfectly well that it is purely self indulgent and must be kept private?

Most of us realized that the idea was a plank in his platform during the 2008 political campaign; but that was during the campaign; and he himself never dreamed that he would become president; but by God's grace, he became one. Did that mean that he should keep every promise? No politician could ever do more than what was politically realistic; and Congress would be there to put the brakes on him, as both Houses were doing to his Health Care reform proposals presently, if he dared to change the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military law that they themselves passed. It (law) was to keep the military in tact and unified; and rescinding it would "throw a spanner in the works", so to speak.

Declaring sexual orientation in the past was bad for the military, and it was still bad for the military now. So, please, Mr. President, do not let them lure you into a false sense of accomplishment for you to rescind what was rightfully done by the Congress of the United States. Any move to change the ruling would be foreboding; and that would certainly be part of your legacy.

P.S. True Christians have no place for homosexuals in their hearts.

P.P.S. The word "gay" is deceitful in the context it is used these days; it is meant to represent something clean and wholesome.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.