betsy

Almost all NATO countries had lowered the physical performance requirements for women - just to boost their presence in the military. What else has been lowered? It doesn't help feeling the pressure to send more women to war, either......especially when you're trying to make a statement. Women become just.......numbers. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/women-peacekeeping-canada-military-1.4547644

How are women for the battlefield? Jennette Goldstein, if not Sigourney Weaver, must likely comes to mind, when feminists think of modern women warriors. What feminist isn't wowed by her? But.....real war, isn't fought in Hollywood. And, not everyone is a Vasquez (if ever there is one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat Now. That should be a grave concern for any soldier fighting alongside a female.

No, we shouldn't send any soldiers at all. Not for the wrong reason of politicizing.....and exploiting what few soldiers we have, to pander to Trudeau's warped agenda. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-s-mali-mission-will-emphasize-deployment-of-female-peacekeepers-1.3848176 Sending our soldiers to dangerous places - especially Mali - shouldn't be based on showing off by meeting a quota to look good before the world. It should be based on qualifications/experience/expertise - anything to make the mission - the real mission that they're supposed to be doing over there - as successful as possible for our soldiers! If Trudeau is bent on showing off with his feminist agenda - and, most likely there will be media fanfare and photo-ops when these soldiers leave for Mali - why pussy-foot around it? Go all the way! Send an all-women team to Mali!

Sung by Samuel Wright.

Btw...... What request? Where does it say in the OP that there's a request for examples of homosexuality?? You must've confused this thread with another forum. The OP had tackled one main argument that insists homosexuality is allowed in the Bible - that creation of male/female is merely for procreation purposes.

Really? Homosexuality? You see homosexual act in that? KIDS! Yes, you got that right! Bang-on! Horny, hormone-running-amuck kids! Those in their puberty - or teens! It's said that these age-group seems too preoccupied with sex! Younger kids find it cool, too - and they usually burst into fits of giggles - when terms like "fart," or "boobs," are mentioned (no matter what context it is). But what secular kid really reads the Bible? Go on....try it - read a Bible verse to a kid, and let's see if he'll stick around with you! So....who's the "kid" you refer to, who says that's "hot?" Who are the kids here who think and say that? Let's see who else thinks like that .........let's keep track of anyone who gives your comment a like. Let's see.......<scrolled up to see your post again> Oh boy! Certain folks seem to equate homosexual sex in every interaction between two males. Kinda remind me of something that was said about pedophiles: they view every interaction between an adult and a child as sexual in nature. I suppose, if we equate what you see in that verse.....that's kinda like a pedo who sees pedophilia with a father innocently bathing his young son. Like I've said before - even "male-bonding" seems to have been brought on to an entirely new level.....by those obsessed with homosexual activities.....or, the thought of it. I mean, what more can I say if certain folks are obsessed with homo sex? That's not what this topic is all about. Let's get back on topic.

You can't explain your own "argument?" Hey.....you're the one who brought it up......

Some Christians don't believe in the deity of Christ. So who cares what other folks regard! I know of a poster here who identify as a Christian, and yet he doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. He likes the philosophy, he said. Go figure. What about the transgendered fish? In what way is it "incongruous" with Genesis? Why don't you explain?

Irrelevant! Read again.

Read it again.

I don't have time to make it any simpler than that. Read it again.

....or (in Canada and UK), criticism of Islam. ------------------------ I can understand the efforts to support Israel - US has been a staunch supporter of Israel, and they're involved in a war against a common enemy: Islamic terrorists. Furthermore, Palestine does not recognize Israel's right to exist. The US and Israel are allies - the same way that the US and England were allies in WW2! If this has been WW2, would it be deemed unconstitutional to punish those Americans who calls to boycott England (and in the process, hurt her economy?), because they don't agree with England bombing Germany? If you hurt and try to diminish the capacity of an ally to fight the war, the US will also be affected! Supporters of Germany would've been lucky if they simply just lose benefits, or get fined in what could be called a........... treasonous act!

I'm responding to your comment about protesting right-wing speakers. I'm pointing out that there's a difference between rightful protests, and bullying (to put it mildly). The leftists "protests" are almost, always ending up in vandalism and/or, looting and violence! Like this one: http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/local/chicago-students-trash-walmart-during-walkout-over-gun-violence

College students aren't merely protesting. They're enforcing their will that speakers they don't agree with shouldn't be heard by others. They're shutting down venues. In other words, these college students are the ones dictating what should and shouldn't be heard. People shouldn't be prevented from exercising their rights. People can choose whether they want to listen to Shapiro or not. No one should take it upon themselves to make the decision for them! No one should intimidate or block people from attending! The liberals are enforcing a dictatorial system!

Read your latest response above......then, apply my answer.

Whether calling for boycott of anyone or anything is racist, misguided, or silly, or unfair...........is irrelevant. I'm referring to the judicial ruling regarding the first amendment. Read the article!

Well, yeah! First Amendment right is supposed to be for everyone!

I'm referring to the judicial ruling. First Ammendment rights. Same thing.

I wonder what happens.............. ....if some American folks in the USA - in a patriotic effort to prevent any possible funding to Islamic terror acts - call for the boycott of all Muslim-owned businesses? And, actively participate in the boycott? What's good for the goose must be good for the gander.

Expand. It's been a while.... I don't remember what you're on about.

Read my response to you above. You can't just go on like as if nothing was explained about that....and ignore given materials. Otherwise, we're done!

Who's talking about buggery? Anal sex does not mean it's exclusively for males only - like as if only a male has an anus. We're talking abut homosexuality!