Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
