Don't Ask....Don't Tell. Good Policy? - Page 20

Pressing-On · #**191** 10-20-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Frankly, having been in the military, I see it as just part of the landscape. There will always be porn (and gays) in the military. Sometimes when deployed or in a long term training environment it's good for moral and mental health to at least see a beautiful woman. We paint them on tanks and airplanes. It's a guy thing. As a medic, I don't advocate for it, but I feel it's not only a soldiers personal choice, but it's also a soldiers private life. Just as with any man (or woman) for that matter.

That's the political correctness of our country now. Even if it is wrong, they have the right. I know we can't force right and wrong on anyone. It simply cannot logically work anyway, but it is a sad day in our country when these things are accepted as the norm. KWIM?

Quote:

Fraternization charge.

I knew that's why you were saying. I was just wondering how it worked or what was entailed.

Aquila · #**192** 10-20-2010, 07:33 AM

Hopefully Coadie can provide us with his thoughts and opinions without insinuating that those who disagree with him are gay.

rgcraig · #**193** 10-20-2010, 07:35 AM

Can we assume that HIV is still very high among prostitutes and those straight service men have just as high a chance of contacting HIV that way?

Pressing-On · #**194** 10-20-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

Inserting? I was just following what you had said.

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

It sounded very much like you wish to keep homosexuals from serving in the military because they might be susceptible to contracting HIV.

Well, I think that is what I did mean to say. Because it can be passed around and it's not treatable. It's deadly. That makes us have a weak link in the military that could have been avoided. Homosexuality is an abomination and is wrong in God's eyes, so really, how will that ever pan out to work for us? It never will. I mean, really, that is the final logic. It just can't work.

Aquila · #**195** 10-20-2010, 07:38 AM

While yes, Sgt. Williams was gay, he'd skillfully kill anything that moved or that could put any of us in danger. Being a medic, I was aware of his lifestyle choice. I took care of him. I was doc. That's what I did. He's an American and a brother in arms. I'd proudly salute him and would proudly present the flag at his funeral if it had been necessary. While his private personal preferences were different from mine, he was one of us. I can't sit here and allow someone to insinuate that he should have been discriminated against. He would have died for any of us... and any of us would have died for him.

When Coadie grows up and realizes what being in a unit is about... maybe his fears will abate.

Sam · #**196** 10-20-2010, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

If you want to stir up Pentecostals, talk about Democrats and Gays. You'll get their temperature up every time.

Why is that when there are so many gay Pentecostals and so many Democrat Pentecostals?

Twisp · #**197** 10-20-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I think that is what I did mean to say. Because it can be passed around and it's not treatable. It's deadly. That makes us have a weak link in the military that could have been avoided. Homosexuality is an abomination and is wrong in God's eyes, so really, how will that ever pan out to work for us? It never will. I mean, really, that is the final logic. It just can't work.

So again, why stop at HIV? Why not start turning people away that are susceptible to any deadly disease? They are potentially weak links, just as you think homosexuals are.

If you are worried about someone getting contracting HIV while serving, just have everyone take routine blood tests. As rgcraig alluded to, this would allow us to know when heterosexual men contract HIV also. Once they contract HIV, then we can sit them out. Problem solved.

If you think that we should disallow homosexuals to serve because they might get HIV, then you should also want us to do that for heterosexuals that partake in activities where they might contract the disease also.

coadie · #**198** 10-20-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

That is a terrible idea. You want to keep someone from joining the military just because they MIGHT be susceptible to a deadly disease down the road?

How would the fact that they MIGHT get HIV, or heart disease, or cancer in the future keep them from admirably and competently serving now?

That just doesn't make sense.

Heart disease and cancer are not sexually transmitted.
You can't give them to another person.

We also treat people that test positive for TB differently.

Twisp · #**199** 10-20-2010, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

Heart disease and cancer are not sexually transmitted.
You can't give them to another person.

We also treat people that test positive for TB differently.

Heterosexuals can contract HIV as well. Are we to keep them out also?

Pressing-On · #**200** 10-20-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Can we assume that HIV is still very high among prostitutes and those straight service men have just as high a chance of contacting HIV that way?

Even though women can pass on the HIV virus, research shows that men can give it more easily. It is because HIV is in the blood and the lining of the rectum is compromised during sex.