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

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Now we are going back down the rabbit hole.

Heterosexual men can get HIV just as easily as homosexual men can. If HIV and its associated costs are the real reason you do not want homosexuals serving in the military, then it makes no sense to allow anyone that can contract HIV to serve in the military, based on your logic.

No, they do not. Aids is transmitted more easily through Anal sex, which is primarily a gay issue.

Aids can be passed through other means, vaginal or oral sex, but it's primarily passed through anal sex. So, no, heterosexual men don't contract aids as easily. I'm sure you are not classifying a bi-sexual person as also heterosexual.

I wonder if I'm supposed to be abbreviating?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, they do not. Aids is transmitted more easily through Anal sex, which is primarily a gay issue.

Aids can be passed through other means, vaginal or oral sex, but it's primarily passed through anal sex. So, no, heterosexual men don't contract aids as easily. I'm sure you are not classifying a bi-sexual person as also heterosexual.

I wonder if I'm supposed to be abbreviating?

But there is still a large risk of heterosexuals being able to contract it. If you are afraid of the HIV virus being in the military, then you need to make sure that no one that serves can possibly contract it. It is the logical solution to your ideas.

To selectively ban one group of people from serving, just because they have an elevated risk of contracting it, is discrimination.

Next, you'll be wanting to ban heterosexual men that have unprotected sex with prostitutes, or heterosexual men that have anal sex with heterosexual women, because they have an elevated risk of contracting HIV. Where does it end?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

But there is still a large risk of heterosexual men being able to contract it. If you are afraid of the HIV virus being in the military, then you need to make sure that no one that serves can possibly contract it. It is the logical solution to your ideas.

Yes, there is a risk, but larger toward homosexuals. We simply need to screen them and they shouldn't be admitted if they test positive and they should be discharged if they test positive while in service. That goes for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. I think we already agreed on that.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, there is a risk, but larger toward homosexuals. We simply need to screen them and they shouldn't be admitted if they test positive and they should be discharged if they test positive while in service. That goes for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. I think we already agreed on that.

Well, yeah, but that was not what you originally said. You originally wanted them unable to serve simply because they had a somewhat higher risk of contracting HIV. That is discrimination.

If all you are saying is that any HIV-positive person should not be allowed to be in the military, I understand that. Or at least, not be allowed on the battlefield or in health-related jobs in the military. Primarily assigned to desk duty perhaps.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Well, yeah, but that was not what you originally said. You originally wanted them unable to serve simply because they had a somewhat higher risk of contracting HIV. That is discrimination.

If all you are saying is that any HIV-positive person should not be allowed to be in the military, I understand that. Or at least, not be allowed on the battlefield or in health-related jobs in the military. Primarily assigned to desk duty perhaps.

Red Cross fortunately discriminates.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Well, yeah, but that was not what you originally said. You originally wanted them unable to serve simply because they had a somewhat higher risk of contracting HIV. That is discrimination.

Well, I think I did come across that way. But, I'm more inclined to your position here:

If all you are saying is that any HIV-positive person should not be allowed to be in the military, I understand that. Or at least, not be allowed on the battlefield or in health-related jobs in the military. Primarily assigned to desk duty perhaps.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I think I did come across that way. But, I'm more inclined to your position here:

I think we can agree that anyone with HIV should be barred from enlistment, and any soldier contracting HIV should be medically discharged.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think we can agree that anyone with HIV should be barred from enlistment, and any soldier contracting HIV should be medically discharged.

Yes, I agree!

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I think I did come across that way. But, I'm more inclined to your position here:

I think we need to find a way to agree without having to go fifty posts into a topic, lol.

You and I should just have a blanket "agree" pact on our ideas. That would save us a lot of time.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I think we need to find a way to agree without having to go fifty posts into a topic, lol.

You and I should just have a blanket "agree" pact on our ideas. That would save us a lot of time.

But you said it helps you through the day when you are bored at work, so I think it helps to prolong the agreements. You just want to grind out the necessary parts out of me so you will feel better than you have influenced someone with your opinion! LOL!