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

Pressing-On · #1 10-20-2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

Going by this logic, we should not allow anyone that smokes, due to their likelihood of getting a form of cancer, or allow anyone who drinks, due to their likelihood of getting liver disease, or allow and one who does not eat healthy, due to their likelihood of having a heart condition. lol

Same faulty logic as the previous statement. We should not let anyone in that smokes, as they are at a higher risk of getting cancer, and thereby not be able to deploy.

You should take it a step further, and not let anyone with a STD serve. Of course, then a lot of straight military personnel would have to quit also.

No, it's incompatible with your thinking. It is very compatible with the military, since there are already homosexuals serving. All of your points can easily be used against heterosexual personnel as well.

We've made great strides toward the issue of smoking. Surveys are showing that smoking has decreased and those that do smoke, smoke less per day. That is progress. Another bright statistic - On average, smokers die fourteen years earlier than nonsmokers which reduces the cost to Social Security and Medicare. LOL! Okay, that was only sort of funny.

And STD's are treatable. HIV is a fatal disease. Not even a good comparison, Twisp.

I agree with this comment by Aquila - "However, if a soldier is "outed" I don't think they should be dismissed merely on preference. I believe some indecent action or unwelcomed advance should be the grounds for dismissal."

I would only add that an additional grounds for dismissal should include anyone coming back as HIV positive. Aids can be passed around, cancer cannot.

Twisp · #2 10-20-2010, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

We've made great strides toward the issue of smoking. Surveys are showing that smoking has decreased and those that do smoke, smoke less per day. That is progress. Another bright statistic - On average, smokers die fourteen years earlier than nonsmokers which reduces the cost to Social Security and Medicare. LOL! Okay, that was only sort of funny.

Whether we have made strides towards decreasing smoking or not, the comparison still stands. If you do not want homosexuals in the military because you do not want to pay for their long-term health care if they get HIV, then the same logic applies to smokers and cancer.

Quote:

And STD's are treatable. HIV is a fatal disease. Not even a good comparison, Twisp.

As far as it being terminal, who cares? There are lots of diseases that are terminal and we don't preclude people from joining the military just because they have a chance to get them.

Quote:

I agree with this comment by Aquila - "However, if a soldier is "outed" I don't think they should be dismissed merely on preference. I believe some indecent action or unwelcomed advance should be the grounds for dismissal."

I would only add that an additional grounds for dismissal should include anyone coming back as HIV positive. Aids can be passed around, cancer cannot.

Herpes, gonorrhea and other STDs are just as spreadable as AIDS, and more likely to be spread. While not necessarily leading to death as AIDs does, they still have symptoms that can easily cause a soldier to not be prepared to go to battle or to their post.

Where do you draw the line? If you do not want one disease in the military, then you have to start looking at all of them.

Pressing-On · #3 10-20-2010, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

Whether we have made strides towards decreasing smoking or not, the comparison still stands. If you do not want homosexuals in the military because you do not want to pay for their long-term health care if they get HIV, then the same logic applies to smokers and cancer.

As far as it being terminal, who cares? There are lots of diseases that are terminal and we don't preclude people from joining the military just because they have a chance to get them.

Herpes, gonorrhea and other STDs are just as spreadable as AIDS, and more likely to be spread. While not necessarily leading to death as AIDs does, they still have symptoms that can easily cause a soldier to not be prepared to go to battle or to their post.

Where do you draw the line? If you do not want one disease in the military, then you have to start looking at all of them.

You are making me remember the report that I read. It did include the STD's leaving a solider inactive. Hmmmm, where did I read that?! I can't remember!

Where to draw the line? Deadly disease is a good place to start - Aids.

Twisp · #4 10-20-2010, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You are making me remember the report that I read. It did include the STD's leaving a solider inactive. Hmmmm, where did I read that?! I can't remember!

Where to draw the line? Deadly disease is a good place to start - Aids.

Why not continue it with cancer? It is a deadly disease also. Why not continue with heart disease? It is a very deadly disease. Why not continue with diabetes? Yet another deadly disease.

So if you think deadly diseases are a god place to draw the line, then you are going to be cutting out a huge amount of potential recruits, lol.

If you do not want to allow homosexuality in the military because homosexuals supposedly have a "50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection", then we need to start screening all applicants for their susceptibility to deadly diseases.

coadie · #5 10-20-2010, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

Why not continue it with cancer? It is a deadly disease also. Why not continue with heart disease? It is a very deadly disease. Why not continue with diabetes? Yet another deadly disease.

So if you think deadly diseases are a god place to draw the line, then you are going to be cutting out a huge amount of potential recruits, lol.

If you do not want to allow homosexuality in the military because homosexuals supposedly have a "50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection", then we need to start screening all applicants for their susceptibility to deadly diseases.

You don't get it. The Red Cross says no to homosexuals. Not just gays that claimed they wore protection because people lie. They say no. They do ask.
They also are not stupid. They don't do blood tests and say ok to the sodomites. They just say no.

A civil society does have the right to say no.
http://www.zazzle.com/liberalism_is_...72749861344299

Jeffrey · #6 10-20-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

You don't get it. The Red Cross says no to homosexuals. Not just gays that claimed they wore protection because people lie. They say no. They do ask.
They also are not stupid. They don't do blood tests and say ok to the sodomites. They just say no.

A civil society does have the right to say no.
http://www.zazzle.com/liberalism_is_...72749861344299

Coadie, would you have dinner with a man, made in the Image of God, who was an unbelieving homosexual?

coadie · #7 10-20-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Coadie, would you have dinner with a man, made in the Image of God, who was an unbelieving homosexual?

Not a problem. I had a gay boss when I was young. we got along great.He was not only smart, he was clear on where others stood. He owned a gay female impersonator bar and never once discussed it.

Pressing-On · #8 10-20-2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

Why not continue it with cancer? It is a deadly disease also. Why not continue with heart disease? It is a very deadly disease. Why not continue with diabetes? Yet another deadly disease.

So if you think deadly diseases are a god place to draw the line, then you are going to be cutting out a huge amount of potential recruits, lol.

If you do not want to allow homosexuality in the military because homosexuals supposedly have a "50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection", then we need to start screening all applicants for their susceptibility to deadly diseases.

I think that we have been making strides with the smoking issue, as I stated.

I agree, we need to have selective screening for all deadly diseases. Political Correctness is also a deadly disease. Right? LOL!

coadie · #9 10-20-2010, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think that we have been making strides with the smoking issue, as I stated.

I agree, we need to have selective screening for all deadly diseases. Political Correctness is also a deadly disease. Right? LOL!

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

http://www.zazzle.com/liberalism_is_...72749861344299

Actually they knew and held back reports on the Ft Hood killer for PC reasons.