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

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by crakjak

That a liberal Federal judge can change a major policy of the military is crazy!!! And then defy the federal government, to even continue the policy until it can be completely run the appeal process is even crazier!! Way too much power in the hands of a single individual. She must be on a real ego trip.

The left has dictated to the rest of us long enough.

Regarding the process... you have a point.

But I don't think just because a judge rules something unconstitutional is somehow scandalous. They are doing their job. They don't seek these cases, they are brought to them.

[Jeffrey]

Tar and feather, BT? Really? Poor you, you are so persecuted

[Jeffrey]

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

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Most of the arguments and concerns on this list have already been overcome in Corporate America.

Do you have rational thinking? Employees in corporate America don't sleep, bunk, shower and live together.

Keep the gays away from normal people.

Corporate America won't ask a male and female to share hotel roooms.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

We were a moral nation, or religious-centered morality became the Politically-Correct culture (similar to PC today, where it surely doesn't mean people don't break PC mores behind closed doors or in informal settings). So, to say people were more moral is a joke.

You haven't proven why sexual orientation should be discriminated against when it comes to serving. A few others have presented some legitimate arguments, but yours just wreaks of homophobia, or at the least extreme evidence of living in a bubble for too long.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Would love to see that link.

Either way, this wouldn't be the first time DODT or McCain was wrong.

It's just awful logic and argumentation when discussing Constitutionality and discrimination.

I can't locate the link. It was too many months back to remember.

What I do see is that a study was done. The stats are there on HIV and there are studies on this issue that don't even relate to the military. Look at the issue of the "down low". It's just a growing issue and a huge health risk.

So, logically, if we want a strong military, we need to avoid any weakness. Especially any weakness we know can be avoided. Because of that, I feel that being gay is not compatible with the military. It's a health risk all around and doesn't only include the financial end of it.

Your posts show how far we have come in our political correctness. We can't even view things with a moral objective anymore. We call it "homophobia" with no moral logic applied. We aren't allowed to apply Christian principles and I find that very sad. You call that living in a "bubble". Too sad. I remember a day when "divorce" was only a by-word. Now everything is prevalent and accepted.

Anyway, I rarely read or post much. I have so many good things going on in my life right now. I don't want to be distracted by negativity and rudeness, which isn't hard to find here. LOL!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I can't locate the link. It was too many months back to remember.

What I do see is that a study was done. The stats are there on HIV and there are studies on this issue that don't even relate to the military. Look at the issue of the "down low". It's just a growing issue and a huge health risk.

So, logically, if we want a strong military, we need to avoid any weakness. Especially any weakness we know can be avoided. Because of that, I feel that being gay is not compatible with the military. It's a health risk all around and doesn't only include the financial end of it.
Your posts show how far we have come in our political correctness. We can't even view things with a moral objective anymore. We call it "homophobia" with no moral logic applied. We aren't allowed to apply Christian principles and I find that very sad. You call that living in a "bubble". Too sad. I remember a day when "divorce" was only a by-word. Now everything is prevalent and accepted.

Anyway, I rarely read or post much. I have so many good things going on in my life right now. I don't want to be distracted by negativity and rudeness, which isn't hard to find here. LOL!

Gays can get anything they want after making the homophobe accusation in a politically correct world.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

*JAW DROP*

I'm sorry, but the military is not the Catholic Church, nor Moralism Crusaders of America.

You're grasping at straws stating homosexuals shouldn't serve because of some stat about a higher health risk is desperate and disgusting, PO.

There's no period about what you said. Period.

You want to talk about health risks and "moral conduct" then let's go there... just be honest, this isn't your chief argument. It's probably #15 on the 100 Reasons Gay People Shouldn't Serve tract.

Health is an issue

You do realize the Red Cross is bigoted when they don't take blood donors that have recent tattoos or gay?

BEIJING — A court in Beijing has thwarted attempts by a Chinese man to sue a Red Cross centre in the capital after his blood donation was turned down because he was gay, state media reported Thursday.

The man, an editor identified by his pen name Wang Zizheng, filed the lawsuit last month at a court in Haidian in northwest Beijing, in what state media said was the first such case in China.

But according to the state-run Beijing Times, an official at the court told Wang on Wednesday that his case had been rejected, without giving him a reason.

When he went to donate blood in early June, Wang said he was gay in a health questionnaire and was then told he could not be a donor, previous reports said.

According to regulations issued by China's health ministry and published by the national blood transfusion association, "homosexuals and those with multiple sex partners" cannot be donors

Same in america.

I have the constitutional right to not accept a blood transfusion from a gay donor.

My College roomate was a lab tech before applying for Med school. They do bacterial tests on different body orrifices and know what dirty sex is.

[coadie]

At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.

HIV/AIDS Rate in D.C. Hits 3%
That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009031402211

In the last day, people don't want truth. The political correctness mandates trump truth.

More than 4 percent of blacks in the city are known to have HIV, along with almost 2 percent of Latinos and 1.4 percent of whites. More than three-quarters -- 76 percent -- of the HIV infected are black, 70 percent are men and 70 percent are age 40 and older.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by notofworks

There is a swirl of activity in the courts recently concerning the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

But in general, what do you think of gays in the military? Should they be allowed in? If not, why? What is the basis for prohibiting them? I would especially be interested in hearing from military or ex-military people.

There have always been gays in the military. Personally, I don't have much of an issue with it. A sergent I knew was gay. They are Americans and should have every right to sign up to defend our country. However, indecent acts or unwelcomed advances should be grounds for immediate dismissal.

As for "don't ask, don't tell"... I think it's a good idea. 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.

[Twisp]

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

It's incompatible with military service - period.

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.