<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama&#8217;s New Military Discriminates Against Heterosexuals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:09:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: zillaoftheresistance</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4526984</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[zillaoftheresistance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4526984</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[He&#039;s got the Reverse Midas Touch!  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#039;s got the Reverse Midas Touch!  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Anziulewicz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4290223</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chuck Anziulewicz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4290223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Allow Gay couples to marry. Problem solved. No more &quot;discrimination&quot; against unmarried Straight couples. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Allow Gay couples to marry. Problem solved. No more &quot;discrimination&quot; against unmarried Straight couples. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jane Larson</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4289889</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jane Larson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:01:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4289889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Because of the youth of many in the military, there has been  non-sexual same-sex intense relationships throughout history...especially in combat among non-parents.This very nature of military is rocked by the new openly homosexual laws because of the close and intense realtionships needed between same-sex military people. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because of the youth of many in the military, there has been  non-sexual same-sex intense relationships throughout history&#8230;especially in combat among non-parents.This very nature of military is rocked by the new openly homosexual laws because of the close and intense realtionships needed between same-sex military people. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reasoner</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4288807</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reasoner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4288807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why should this surprise anyone?  Heterophobic homosexuals themselves &quot;discriminate&quot; against other sexual minorities, like consenting-adult incestuous people and exhibitionists, who are not included in the &quot;rainbow LGBT coalition.&quot;  Using the &quot;logic&quot; of homosexuals, homosexuals themselves must be incest-phobes and exhibitionist-phobes as well as haters, bigots, etc., etc.  Hypocrisy reigns among liberals. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why should this surprise anyone?  Heterophobic homosexuals themselves &quot;discriminate&quot; against other sexual minorities, like consenting-adult incestuous people and exhibitionists, who are not included in the &quot;rainbow LGBT coalition.&quot;  Using the &quot;logic&quot; of homosexuals, homosexuals themselves must be incest-phobes and exhibitionist-phobes as well as haters, bigots, etc., etc.  Hypocrisy reigns among liberals. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LibertarianToo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4287647</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LibertarianToo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4287647</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It isn&#039;t a definition, it&#039;s a designation.The definition might be &quot;sexual partners intending to remain so through life&quot; as opposed to boyfriend / girlfriend du jour, or the relations you enumerate.. Married couples say &quot;I do.&quot; &quot;Domestic partners&quot; say &quot;I would if I could.&quot; If that seems unfair, we could obviate the whole thing by denying &quot;benefits&quot; to married heterosexual spouses and their offspring . After all, Why should the taxpayer pay for someone&#039;s medical care just because their  wife is in the army? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It isn&#039;t a definition, it&#039;s a designation.The definition might be &quot;sexual partners intending to remain so through life&quot; as opposed to boyfriend / girlfriend du jour, or the relations you enumerate.. Married couples say &quot;I do.&quot; &quot;Domestic partners&quot; say &quot;I would if I could.&quot; If that seems unfair, we could obviate the whole thing by denying &quot;benefits&quot; to married heterosexual spouses and their offspring . After all, Why should the taxpayer pay for someone&#039;s medical care just because their  wife is in the army? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JacksonPearson</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4287525</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JacksonPearson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:24:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4287525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Everything that Obama touches, turns to ca-ca! ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everything that Obama touches, turns to ca-ca! </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tagfu222</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4287349</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tagfu222]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4287349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Those who cannot legally marry must self-designate as domestic partners if they want the benefits of a married couple.&quot;

Is there any limit to who would be eligible under this definition?  A separated, but not yet divorced same sex person, brothers(especially if raised separately), half brothers, 1st cousins etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Those who cannot legally marry must self-designate as domestic partners if they want the benefits of a married couple.&#8221;</p>
<p>Is there any limit to who would be eligible under this definition?  A separated, but not yet divorced same sex person, brothers(especially if raised separately), half brothers, 1st cousins etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LibertarianToo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4287127</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LibertarianToo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:09:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4287127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No. It means that couples who have the legal option of marrying must do so in order to be considered married. Those who cannot legally marry must self-designate as domestic partners if they want the benefits of a married couple. I don&#039;t have a problem with it, but then I&#039;m a libertarian. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No. It means that couples who have the legal option of marrying must do so in order to be considered married. Those who cannot legally marry must self-designate as domestic partners if they want the benefits of a married couple. I don&#039;t have a problem with it, but then I&#039;m a libertarian. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Sue</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-new-military-discriminates-against-heterosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-4286919</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mary Sue]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:01:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178232#comment-4286919</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[woooooow.  Does this mean they&#039;re stopping benefits for married heterosexual couples? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>woooooow.  Does this mean they&#039;re stopping benefits for married heterosexual couples? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 470/479 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 23:22:54 by W3 Total Cache -->