Discussion:
A unique perspective on 'gays' in the military
Add Reply
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 05:42:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <s4ku5i$quu$***@pcls7.std.com>
The SHPAMMER ish sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej' Baron
The head of Poland's Roman Catholic Church has said he is asking the Vatican to
investigate the cover-up of child sexual abuse by priests.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52694489
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 05:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <s4ku69$r4i$***@pcls7.std.com>
The SHPAMMER ish sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej' Baron
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/09/paedophile-priest-performed-catholic-mass-children-following/
FEH!
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 05:58:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
The SHPAMMER ish jew paedophile BARRY Z. SHEIN 700 Washington St
HUH?
Care, to EXPLAIN anus? <B<
What's it, gonna BE anus? <G<
DAY OFF or the usual skata anus? <GB<
Report, BACK anus! <VGB<
<tsk<
<KICK<
--
"SHPAMMERSH ARE CROOKSH
DON'T DO BUSINESSH VITH CROOKSH!"
- jew paedophile shpammer Barry Z. Shein (world.std.com home page)
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 06:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <s4ku4r$qp4$***@pcls7.std.com>
BARRY ish jew wannabe sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9014259/Catholic-priest-named-child-abuser-church-camp-1958-deaf-boy-10-disappeared.html
They are SCUM!
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 06:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <s4ku2u$q9q$***@pcls7.std.com>
The SHPAMMER ish sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej' Baron
SICK PIGS!
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/editors-desk/1/19316/the-catholic-church-is-to-blame
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 06:48:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
The SHPAMMER ish jew paedophile BARRY Z. SHEIN 700 Washington St
HUH?
Why oh, WHY OIH anus? <B<
You can't even, do what they ORDER you to do anus! <G<
Seems, [sic][SIC!!! LOL] you're USELESS innit anus! <GB<
Care, to EXPLAIN anus? <VGB<
Report, BACK anus! <EGB<
<tsk<
<pat<
<pat<
<pat<
<KICK<
--
"SHPAMMERSH ARE CROOKSH
DON'T DO BUSINESSH VITH CROOKSH!"
- jew paedophile shpammer Barry Z. Shein (world.std.com home page)
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 06:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
STD.COM ish jew kike paedophile BARRY Z. SHEIN 700 Washington St
HUH?
DO it, you stupid demented obsessed Grik cunt! <B<
Manually butt not laboriously! <G<
TO and FRO, TO and FRO! [sic][SIC!!! LOL] <GB<
Report, BACK! <VGB<
<tsk<
--
"SHPAMMERSH ARE CROOKSH
DON'T DO BUSINESSH VITH CROOKSH!"
- jew paedophile shpammer Barry Z. Shein (world.std.com home page)
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 07:13:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <s4ku3j$qes$***@pcls7.std.com>
BARRY ish jew wannabe sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/28/church-of-england-approves-compensation-for-sexual-abuse-survivors
AT LAST... pigs!
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 07:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
The SHPAMMER ish jew paedophile BARRY Z. SHEIN 700 Washington St
HUH?
You KNOW it should have been YOU anus! <G<
Why oh, WHY OH, why oh, why oh, why oh, WHY oh, WHY OH WASN'T it you
anus? <GB<
Better, LUCK next time anus! <VGB<
Insh'Allah it, WILL be you anus! <EGB<
<tsk<
--
"SHPAMMERSH ARE CROOKSH
DON'T DO BUSINESSH VITH CROOKSH!"
- jew paedophile shpammer Barry Z. Shein (world.std.com home page)
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 09:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
STD.COM ish jew kike paedophile BARRY Z. SHEIN 700 Washington St
HUH?
A jew pwner like that, who needs?
LOLOK
--
"SHPAMMERSH ARE CROOKSH
DON'T DO BUSINESSH VITH CROOKSH!"
- jew paedophile shpammer Barry Z. Shein (world.std.com home page)
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.
Sympathy Vote
2021-04-08 10:26:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/20/churches-knew-of-allegations-against-notorious-paedophile-priests-royal-commission-says
SHEESH!
Major Melissa Wells-Petry, a lawyer who has prosecuted sodomy
cases for the Army over the past decade, told the Washington
Chapter of the Catholic League that homosexual behavior not
“homosexual status” defmes homosexuals in the eyes of the
military.

Such “defining behavior,” she said, mandates the exclusion of
homosexuals from the armed forces.

Emphasizing that she was giving “this soldier’s views, my
personal views,” Major Wells-Petry contrasted “the great themes
of this debate, the great chants,” with the “unique environment
and unique mission of the military.”

This unique mission is “to be trained and ready to kill people
and break things,” and in carrying it out the soldier is
expected to risk his own life. She declared: “You won’t find
that in anyone else’s job description.”

The military’s mission creates the “unique military
environment,” she asserted: “close quarters, the dependence on
one another for the preservation of life, the dependence of each
military unit on internal cohesion for its effectiveness.”

“I think and certainly this has been the case with various
judges over the years it’s entirely possible to have a variety
of views on homosexuality and still be fully persuaded that
homosexuality is not compatible with the military environment or
with the military’s mission.”

She set such incompatibility against “this drumbeat” that the
military ought to judge individuals by how they be- have, not
what they are.

“Well, let me tell you: this is exactly what the military’s
policy does,” Major Wells-Petry asserted.

“It makes a distinction about homosexuality based on what
homosexuals do, the actual doing of homosexual acts. It makes a
distinction based on the consequences of homosexual acts. It
makes a distinction based on the political agenda that’s
associated with homosexuality. It makes a distinction based on
the undeniable health and welfare risks of homosexuality.”

What about a simple declaration of homosexuality? The rule has
been that anyone who simply admits to being a homosexual is not
admitted to the armed services.

“The law says that when a person tells you, ‘I am a homosexual,’
he is not telling you his status. He is identifying himself as a
member of a group whose behavior is incompatible with military
service.”

Most people would be surprised, according to Major Wells-Petry,
to learn that over the past two decades the military has won
“every single legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
homosexual exclusion policy.” Homosexuals have challenged the
exclusion policy “on every conceivable constitutional basis,”
she said, such as the right to privacy, free speech, free
association, and equal protection. “All of these challenges
failed. Why? Because homosexuality involves behavior, and the
law constantly and appropriately makes distinctions based on
behavior.”

Major Wells-Petry, on less than 24 hours notice, substituted for
the announced speaker, Mrs. Mary Cummins of Community School
Board 24 in Queens, New York City, who was at the center of the
storm over distributing condoms in city schools. Mrs. Cummins
was ill.

The talk was given May 14 at the Catholic University of America,
under the joint sponsorship of the Catholic League and the
university’s School of Philosophy.

Loading...