Don't Ask....Don't Tell. Good Policy?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The issue is not about identity, it is about "conduct".

We already know that studies show that men having sex with men have a 50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection.

It creates financial problems which the taxpayers will be paying for through military and veterans programs for the rest of the infected person's life.

It creates a readiness problem as you cannot deploy nor discharge a person with HIV.

It creates a health risk problem to other service members who may need to receive blood transfusions on the battlefield.

It's incompatible with military service - period.

Statement #1: Hogwash
Statement #2: Horsefeathers
Statement #3: Baloney

....and so on.

The military ban on gays has nothing to do with any STD's. They were banned long before anyone ever heard of AIDS.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Statement #1: Hogwash
Statement #2: Horsefeathers
Statement #3: Baloney

....and so on.

The military ban on gays has nothing to do with any STD's. They were banned long before anyone ever heard of AIDS.

This is true and it was because we were a more moral nation in times past. Now we are a politically correct braindead nation. My facts are true and my statement stands - It is incompatible with military service - period.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Was it worth it? What would the homosexual community think about that?

MB, I sincerely believe it's a concern, but I don't believe it's anyone's chief concern. Call me cynical I guess.

Frankly, I haven't given this issue a lot of thought before today. However, when I read NOW's OP, the first thing that popped into my head was fear--fear of vigilante justice and assault and mob mentalities and maybe even murder. So I guess that was MY chief concern. I was horrified to read about the young man who committed suicide a couple of weeks ago because some other kids posted video of him having sex with his partner. I can't imagine things being any better in the military for gay men who come out of the closet. Can you? That actually does scare me. That doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be addressed, but there's nothing disingenuous about acknowledging that very real possibility.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The issue is not about identity, it is about "conduct".

We already know that studies show that men having sex with men have a 50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection.

It creates financial problems which the taxpayers will be paying for through military and veterans programs for the rest of the infected person's life.

It creates a readiness problem as you cannot deploy nor discharge a person with HIV.

It creates a health risk problem to other service members who may need to receive blood transfusions on the battlefield.

It's incompatible with military service - period.

I think you're assuming that open knowledge of who's gay and who's not will = more [gay] sex than is already taking place. I seriously doubt that's the case. Personally, I think it will lead to more boundaries between soldiers; not less. The resultant problems would be more about inhibiting necessary camaraderie, creating unnecessary tension between men who have to live together, and possibly a lack of respect or trust for a gay man in any leadership role. In the case where a relationship was formed, it would create unnecessary distraction in the same manner that it would between a man and woman.

Tax payers already pick up the bill for men who can't pay for the health consequences of their homosexual lifestyle; however, I'm not personally willing to see them rot in misery just because they made terrible choices. That's like saying we won't cover medical treatment for anyone who's obese since they made the choice to get fat.

I can definitely think of complications caused by having gays in the military that are more detrimental to our national security than taking money out of the tax payer's pocket.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think you're assuming that open knowledge of who's gay and who's not will = more [gay] sex than is already taking place. I seriously doubt that's the case. Personally, I think it will lead to more boundaries between soldiers; not less. The resultant problems would be more about inhibiting necessary camaraderie, creating unnecessary tension between men who have to live together, and in the case where a relationship was formed, it creates unnecessary distraction in the same manner that it would between a man and woman.

Tax payers already pick up the bill for men who can't pay for the health consequences of their homosexual lifestyle; however, I'm not personally willing to see them rot in misery just because they made terrible choices. That's like saying we won't cover medical treatment for anyone who's obese since they made the choice to get fat.

I can definitely think of complications caused by having gays in the military that are more detrimental to our national security than taking money out of the tax payer's pocket.

The issue is not about identity, it is about "conduct".

We already know that studies show that men having sex with men have a 50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection.

It creates financial problems which the taxpayers will be paying for through military and veterans programs for the rest of the infected person's life.

It creates a readiness problem as you cannot deploy nor discharge a person with HIV.

It creates a health risk problem to other service members who may need to receive blood transfusions on the battlefield.

It's incompatible with military service - period.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is true and it was because we were a more moral nation in times past. Now we are a politically correct braindead nation. My facts are true and my statement stands - It is incompatible with military service - period.

But you made this statement based on your pointless statements about a virus that is sometimes transmitted by sexual activity; some of that sexual activity being homosexual.

So you're telling me that the military once prohibited gays because it was more moral than it is now??? Are you serious? Have you heard the vile, vulgar, filthy language that drill sergeants throw around? Have you read up, at all, about the disgusting things that happen behind the scenes in the military?

I'm calling hogwash again.

Come on.....The United States was MORE MORAL before???? Like when we wouldn't let black people vote???

Please.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The issue is not about identity, it is about "conduct".

We already know that studies show that men having sex with men have a 50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection.

It creates financial problems which the taxpayers will be paying for through military and veterans programs for the rest of the infected person's life.

It creates a readiness problem as you cannot deploy nor discharge a person with HIV.

It creates a health risk problem to other service members who may need to receive blood transfusions on the battlefield.

It's incompatible with military service - period.

Are you channeling coadie? Why the repeated post?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Are you channeling coadie? Why the repeated post?

Good point.....she's sounding a little Coadie-ish here. PO is a great cook, but lacks credibility in the gay-military argument!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

So out with it, Coadoofus....do you think I'm gay?

don we now our gay apparel

fa la la la la la fa la la la

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Sam

don we now our gay apparel

fa la la la la la fa la la la

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Good point.....she's sounding a little Coadie-ish here. PO is a great cook, but lacks credibility in the gay-military argument!

I read the facts that I posted from a study published on the subject. I read it months ago and didn't save the link. All the facts listed were a concern on the DADT policy. If I can locate the study, I'll post it. I seem to remember that John McCain weighed in on this with the same concerns.